2008/6/3 Amila Suriarachchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ... > As I understood this revolutionary talks about doing a substantial > improvement to an existing code base.
I think that is the norm, but not required. If it's not a branch it becomes (much) more difficult to merge it back with the trunk. It is possible for the revolutionary branch to replace the trunk (but this is IMHO just an extreme case of a merge). > > For an example If I come up with a Sandasha2 improvement which community > does not agree at first time, I can create a branch of existing Sandesha2 > code base and implement my improvement. Then I can ask from the community to > review it and merge it to the main trunk. > > But here the case is different. Mercury is completely different from > Sandesha2. It is not an improvement to Sandesha2. It sounds like you'd like a new project to run in parallel with Sandesha2. This would imply building a community around it etc etc. > > AFAIK Apache in general does not have a policy to handle this kind of > situations. Yes, it does. It's the Apache Incubator. > > For an example If I came up with this idea when I wrote the Simulator People > would have said This is not a real implementation and a real implementation > would be more complex. > > On the other hand If I put a complete implementation then people would have > said This has happened without telling to the community. > > So it becomes a chicken and egg problem. Another option would have been to start a revolutionary branch in Apache SVN after -dev list discussions on the issues with Sandesha2 / SMTP. Then Mercury's development from scratch would have been in full view of the Sandesha2 community from the start. > > IMHO the correct solution is to keep both implementations and Let people to > contribute/use to whatever they prefer. And when the time goes we can decide > whether to go ahead with Sandesha2, Mercury or both. That would imply a new project, seeded with a contribution from a third party, so should go through the incubator. There are good reasons for this - e.g. name checking the name 'Mercury'. If a separate project is what people want, we should *at least* have the discussion with the Incubator PMC / general list on whether an incubator podling is required. I feel uncomfortable starting a new WS subproject seeded with a relatively large body of code that wasn't developed at Apache, without it going through the rigor that the incubator brings. My preference though would be that we don't have a fork and that there is either a clear distinction between the goals of Mercury vs Sandesha2, or even better a combined project with perhaps multiple modules. Cheers, Jeremy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
