On 2020-03-07, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 07/03/2020 15:35, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Hi all
>> nowadays Gump has become a tool that really only gets used by Tomcat. As
>> long as it is useful for Tomcat this is probably fine. But is this the
>> future of this project? Honestly, I haven't got any other vision to
>> share.
> It is definitely useful for Tomcat and indirectly for its dependencies.
> We caught a regression in OpenSSL master that would otherwise have gone
> unnoticed.
This is great.
>> I wonder whether this in any way affects Gump's position of an Apache
>> TLP. We've always been a special kind of project, more like an
>> infrastructure service than a project that creates releases.
> Interesting question.
> As I see it the options are:
> a) continue as is
> b) hand over to infra to maintain
> c) hand over to the Tomcat PMC to maintain
> I think b) is the least likely. I don't think infra would accept it. I
> might be wrong. I'll ask.
I had similar thoughts myself but dismissed your option b immediately.
> If the board is happy with a) and we have 3 PMC members then the status
> quo is probably the least work.
Where the 3 PMC member rule really only is there so the PMC can cut a
release - which we've never done and probably will never do.
> c) probably means retiring the Gump project but with the slight twist
> that ongoing maintenance of the Gump svn repo is handed over to the
> Tomcat PMC rather than it being made read-only. I don't know what the
> Tomcat community would say to that. I'll ask.
Thank you.
> I don't think we need to be in any great rush to decide what to do. I
> think we have the 3 PMC members (we can always do a roll-call on
> private@ to confirm that if we want) so the status quo is OK.
Yes, this is true.
Cheers
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@gump.apache.org
