date:20150311

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

2015-03-11 Thread Martijn Dashorst

Great initiative!

Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?

Martijn

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

2015-03-11 Thread Pascal Schumacher

Am 11.03.2015 um 21:24 schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to
happen on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web
UI for merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors
git repositories from git.apache.org http://git.apache.org to github.
Yes, we are aware of that. But as I understand we can still pull the
changes (from a pull request) to our local repo then merge/cherry-pick
and push to the ASF repo which will than be mirrored on github, right?

Regards,
Pascal

I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board
if groovy enters incubation.

Benedikt

2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com
mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com:

A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually
contributed for the
past 4 years:

https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01to=2015-03-11type=c
and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors.
GitHub
helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple
typos to
complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution
in GitHub
doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that
authors are
preserved.

While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep
knowledge
of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular
contributors to
become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
following quality standards, take care of important things like
maintaining
backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in
the past,
but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons.
In the end
I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but
meritocracy is
also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.

2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
mailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i j...@apache.org
mailto:j...@apache.org wrote:
Hi.

Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good,
one thing
caught my eye.

The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community
and the
initial
commiters are only 5.

This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because
looking
at this:
https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
me wonder exactly the same thing.

In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it
is and
position
the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.

That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's
the best
way
to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in
the project
and have contributed in the past get invited.

There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
appreciate Incubator's
collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here
given
that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors
in the
past.
Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.

Thanks,
Roman.

--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://people.apache.org/%7Ebritter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

2015-03-11 Thread jan i

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:;
 wrote:
  Hi.
 
  Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
  caught my eye.
 
  The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
 initial
  commiters are only 5.

 This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
 preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
 at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
 me wonder exactly the same thing.

 In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
 position
 the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.

 That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the best
 way
 to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the project
 and have contributed in the past get invited.

 There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
 appreciate Incubator's
 collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
 that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
 past.
 Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.


Just to be sure I am not misunderstood, I will be happy to vote +1 with 5
initial committers.

I was simply (as you) puzzled over what seems to non logical.

rgds
jan i


 Thanks,
 Roman.

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 javascript:;
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 javascript:;



-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

2015-03-11 Thread Rich Bowen

The paragraph that begins with Despite all those advantages ... 
doesn't seem to contribute anything to the proposal, and might benefit 
from either being cut, or by calling out an action - that is, does this 
mean that you expect to engage more closely with these projects to help 
them do better?


--Rich

On 03/11/2015 02:58 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

Hi!

It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
proposal:
 https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
for wide discussion before conducting and IPMC
vote on it. In order to engage as much potential stakeholders
as possible we will be soliciting input on {dev,users}@groovy.codehaus.org
The main discussion, however, is going to happen on this thread.

The copy of the proposal is included bellow, but please note
that any required changes would be reflected on the wiki.

Thanks,
Roman (Groovy proposal champion and a nominated mentor).

== Abstract ==
Groovy is an object-oriented programming language for the Java
platform. It is a primarily dynamic language with features similar to
those of Python, Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. Groovy, if accepted by
Incubator, will be a first major programming language developed under
the umbrella of Apache Software Foundation.

== Proposal ==
Groovy is a programming language for the Java platform. It is a
primarily dynamic language with features similar to those of Python,
Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. It also has optional static type checking
and static compilation facilities. It can be used as a scripting
language for the Java Platform or to write complete applications, is
compiled to Java Virtual Machine (JVM) bytecode, and interoperates
with other Java code and libraries. Groovy uses a Java-like
curly-bracket syntax. Most Java code is also syntactically valid
Groovy, although semantics may be different. Groovy has long been
developed under an Apache License v2.0 under an open governance
community management process. However, so far Groovy has been a
project mostly sponsored by a single company. This proposal aims at
bringing Groovy community under the umbrella of the Apache Software
Foundation.

It must be explicitly noted, that a few sister projects such as Groovy
Eclipse and others (some of them hosted under
https://github.com/groovy and listed at
http://groovy-lang.org/ecosystem.html) are not covered by this
proposal. It is possible that these other projects will be joining ASF
either independently or as sub-projects of Apache Groovy in the
future. For now, we are only proposing groovy-core.

== Background ==
Groovy 1.0 was released on January 2, 2007, and Groovy 2.0 in July,
2012. Groovy 2.5 is planned for release in 2015. Groovy 3.0 is planned
for release in 2016, with support for a new Meta Object Protocol.
Since version 2, Groovy can also be compiled statically, offering type
inference and performance very close to that of Java. Groovy 2.4 will
be the last major release under Pivotal Software's sponsorship, which
is scheduled to end on March 31, 2015.

== Rationale ==
Groovy is a pretty mature language. After 12 years of development, it
has grown from being primarily a dynamic scripting language on the JVM
to an optionally statically compiled language allowing the same
performance level as Java applications. With the release of Groovy
2.4, the language targets the largest pool of mobile developers with
native Android support. Groovy has been integrated in a large number
of applications, including well known open-source projects like
Jenkins, Gradle, ElasticSearch, Spring and more.

There are multiple alternative languages on the JVM: Scala, Clojure,
Ceylon, Kotlin, JRuby, Golo and others but Groovy is the only one
which has proved to be very easy to integrate with Java in both ways:
Groovy code using Java code, but also Java code using Groovy code.
Groovy even provides a joint compiler which allows interdependent Java
and Groovy classes to compile together. Groovy also supports dynamic
code generation, that is to say classes at runtime, making it a
perfect fit for scripting. With a very lightweight and malleable
syntax, it is also easy to build internal Domain Specific Languages
(DSLs) which integrate smoothly within applications.

Groovy provides a number of unique features, like builders (Java 8 has
lambdas but still has syntactic overhead and no notion of delegate),
AST transformations (compile-time metaprogramming) or type checking
extensions (which allows the developer to bring the compiler to levels
of type checking and type inference that go far beyond what other
languages do). Groovy also provides powerful integration options and
customizations which set it apart from other languages. Groovy is also
unique in the way it allows the developer to choose between various
paradigms without compromise: functional vs object-oriented,
statically compiled vs dynamic, scripting vs applications, etc.

Despite all those advantages, and the fact that Groovy is widely
adopted (4.5 million downloads in

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

2015-03-11 Thread Benedikt Ritter

Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to happen
on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web UI for
merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors git
repositories from git.apache.org to github.

I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board if
groovy enters incubation.

Benedikt

2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com:

A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for the
past 4 years:

https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01to=2015-03-11type=c
and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHub
helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos to
complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in GitHub
doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors are
preserved.

While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep knowledge
of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular contributors to
become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
following quality standards, take care of important things like maintaining
backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in the past,
but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons. In the end
I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but meritocracy is
also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.

2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
Hi.

Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
caught my eye.

The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
initial
commiters are only 5.

This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
me wonder exactly the same thing.

In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
position
the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.

That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the best
way
to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the project
and have contributed in the past get invited.

There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
appreciate Incubator's
collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
past.
Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.

Thanks,
Roman.

--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

2015-03-11 Thread Guillaume Laforge

Yes Benedikt, we're aware of that.
It's actually been one of the (pain) points we raised when discussing with
our (then-soon-to-be) mentors and champion.
Working with the Github infrastructure was very smooth, very handy and
practical.
But we'll have to get used to this new approach!

Guillaume

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:

Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to
happen on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web UI
for merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors git
repositories from git.apache.org to github.

I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board if
groovy enters incubation.

Benedikt

2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com:

A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for
the
past 4 years:

https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01to=2015-03-11type=c
and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHub
helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos to
complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in GitHub
doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors are
preserved.

While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep
knowledge
of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular contributors to
become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
following quality standards, take care of important things like
maintaining
backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in the past,
but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons. In the
end
I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but meritocracy is
also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.

2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
Hi.

Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
caught my eye.

The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
initial
commiters are only 5.

This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors
makes
me wonder exactly the same thing.

In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
position
the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.

That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the
best
way
to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the
project
and have contributed in the past get invited.

There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
appreciate Incubator's
collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
past.
Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.

Thanks,
Roman.

--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge http://twitter.com/glaforge / Google+
https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

2015-03-11 Thread Cédric Champeau

Don't worry your question is perfectly legitimate. I don't know if it's
specific to Groovy, but we indeed have a lot of contributors, but not so
many recurrent one that may become committers.

2015-03-11 22:11 GMT+01:00 jan i j...@apache.org:

 On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
 wrote:

  On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:;
  wrote:
   Hi.
  
   Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
   caught my eye.
  
   The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
  initial
   commiters are only 5.
 
  This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
  preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
  at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
  me wonder exactly the same thing.
 
  In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
  position
  the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
 
  That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the best
  way
  to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the project
  and have contributed in the past get invited.
 
  There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
  appreciate Incubator's
  collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
  that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
  past.
  Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.


 Just to be sure I am not misunderstood, I will be happy to vote +1 with 5
 initial committers.

 I was simply (as you) puzzled over what seems to non logical.

 rgds
 jan i

 
  Thanks,
  Roman.
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  javascript:;
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
  javascript:;
 
 

 --
 Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

2015-03-11 Thread Cédric Champeau

A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for the
past 4 years:
https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01to=2015-03-11type=c
and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHub
helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos to
complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in GitHub
doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors are
preserved.