Craig Doremus wrote:
1I understand their are some historical reasons to proceed
cautiously, so please have the Portals PMC vote on this matter as soon
as possible.
Craig, here is what I think the key point of this discussion is:
> Santiago Gala wrote:
>>
>> Now, if the components of such team have the whole communications on
>> pluto-dev, and they send patches (except for Ulrich, which is a
>> committer) that get integrated until they earn committership, the
>> process would not need to pass through the incubator.
>>
The only way to accomplish that is for the implementers from the
university to start to join our conversations on THIS LIST. I think
we're all very open to their participation are willing to work through
whatever barriers exist as long as it's done the Apache Way.
Because of that, I feel as though we should wait to hold any sort of
vote or make a decision. Let's give them a chance to collaborate with
us since that's exactly what we're asking for.
My only suggestion is that keeping track of the Jena
contributions is better done in Jira rather than on pluto-dev.
Nevertheless, I am willing to abide by what ever the PMC decides.
I think that the references to pluto-dev are aimed at ensuring that
DISCUSSIONS and DECISION MAKING for 2.0 involve the entire portals team.
Jira Issues alone will not promote this.
If I understand what everyone else is saying correctly, patches being
contributed through JIRA will be ok as long as they:
1) Are small iterative steps (typical patch sizes) and not a disguised
code dump.
2) Are discussed on the list prior to implementation (in the case of
brand new features).
David
