Craig Doremus wrote:
Torsten, who already subscribes to this list, appears to be cooperative.
He wants to work with us and contribute code to our SVN repository with
the help of current Pluto committers. He already has agreed to work on
PLUTO-233 and PLUTO-232/249. two of the most important container-related
Pluto 1.1 issues.
Great. I'm sure he is - didn't mean to imply that he won't be.
I am suggesting that we create a Pluto 2.0 branch based on our current
Pluto 1.1 trunk. I then suggest that we create a 2.0 version or branch
in Jira. Torsten and his group can submit their code by creating issues
in this Jira branch and attaching their files or patches to these
issues. It will be up to the Pluto committers to add these contributions
to SVN. In time, I hope that Torsten can earn the right to be a
committer himself. Others will also be encouraged to contribute to the
Pluto 2.0 branch.
Also, isn't one of his team members a committer (Ulrich)? I have no
problem with him committing the changes. At the same time, I don't mind
helping out.
I am willing to go along with the group consensus, but I hope we can
move the JSR-286 (Portlet 2.0) RI forward without any undue bureaucracy.
/Craig
Yup, we just need to make sure that we provide the protocol in order to
follow Apache ByLaws. We need the PMC to have the correct level of
oversight. I'm no expert on this so I'll rely on Carsten and others for
their assistance.
Carsten, if we take the patch and incremental commit approach do you
think we still need to go through the incubator? In a way I kind of
agree with Craig that this development is more like "enhancements" to an
existing codebase (after all, it's all on top of 1.1) as opposed to a
totally new project. At the same time, I want to make sure we follow
the right protocol.
David
David H. DeWolf wrote:
No matter if it goes through the incubator or not, I'd like to make
sure the pluto committers have an opportunity to review the code
before it's committed. I was originally under the impression that the
way this development was going to work was that instead of a code
"grant" or dump, incremental modifications would take place in a
branch - all starting from a clean 1.1 branch.
If this is not the way it will work, we just need to iron out the
protocol - such as if the incubator is the right approach.
In terms of our contact with Torsten, I personally have had any
discussions other than trying to connect with him. I think the ideal
would be for him (and others on his team) to join the pluto-dev list
and allow us to all contribute to the discussions. . .
Just my 2 cents. . .
David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
see below
Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/24/2006 03:54:44 PM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > IBM has contracted with a group at the University of Jena in
Germany to
> > help create the reference implementation of JSR-286 to be hosted at
> > Apache. David and I have been in contact with this group, which
is headed
> > by Torsten Dettborn, a member of the JSR-286 Expert Group.
Torsten's group
> > has done some work on the JSR-286 RI based on Pluto 1.1 that
they want to
> > contribute to our repository.
> >
> > Unless anyone objects, I would like to create a Pluto 2.0 branch
in SVN to
> > house the JSR-286 Reference Implementation code. The starting
point for
> > this branch will be the Pluto 1.1 code now in our SVN trunk.
> >
> > This is a great chance for the community to contribute to the
JSR-286 RI
> > and get an early look at an implementation of the developing
JSR-286 spec.
> I think every code donation must go through the incubator first,
so we
> should definitly first check with them.
>
They are contributing code that builds on our current code base. I do
not see why it has to go through the incubation process. Like Tomcat,
which revs up a version for a new servlet/JSP spec, we are creating a
new version that corresponds to the new portlet spec.
/Craig
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
> http://www.s-und-n.de
> http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
