----- Original Message ----
> From: David Reiss <dre...@facebook.com>
> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 4:38:02 PM
> Subject: Re: time for a reboot?
>
> > 1) Facebook submitted the code grant over a year after
> > the code was checked into svn.
> I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. The documents submitted by Facebook
> were lost *twice* by Apache, as well as several of the ICLAs submitted
> by non-Facebook contributors.
Wasn't aware of that. In any case our document processing has improved
over time, so it's less likely that something like that could happen now.
> > It was only after arm-twisting by both me and Upayavira that Todd
> > Lipcon was offered commit in order to deal with the issues and cut a
> > release.
> Todd specifically told us that he did not care about getting commit
> access.
>
> > Todd seems to have lost interest in further work here.
> This is because Todd changed jobs, and his new employer does not use
> Thrift.
>
> > 2) When Upayavira or I or anyone else ask questions about
> > the project and its future here, Facebook devs always
> > speak on behalf of the devs instead of encouraging input
> > from others.
> Well, I can just speak for myself, but I respond to these emails because
> I'm trying to be helpful. It sounds like it would be more helpful for
> me to encourage others to respond instead, so I'll be doing this from
> now on. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
As someone recently told me, community building is more art than
science. Encouraging participation from others is important if
the project is going to grow its developer base.
>
> > 3) Instant releases are counter to Apache's goals for code
> > management and distribution policies. As dev tools they
> > are tolerable, but when end-users are told to use those
> > instead of true releases they are not.
> I'm not sure if I've never told an end-user to use an instant release
> instead of a true release. If I have, I'm pretty sure it was before 0.2
> was released. The instant releases are just there so people who want to
> use trunk but not install autoconf and friends can do so. No one has
> ever told me that maintaining this page is harming Thrift, but I'd be
> more than happy to shut it down if that is the case.
As I said as a dev tool it's ok. Just be careful not to promote them
to people in the user community.
> > While I haven't seen commits being vetoed, I also haven't seen commits
> > get discussed post-commit, which means the review is happening prior
> > to commit instead of post commit. That should be addressed by the
> > community
> When we started the project, we were told that we were free to choose
> between a "review-then-commit" or "commit-then-review" model, and we
> (which includes non-Facebook contributors) chose the former. If this is
> no longer considered good practice, I suppose we could switch models.
Ok. While it *is* something we leave up to the projects, it is not
aligned with best practice here to follow review-then-commit for
trunk. It tends to stife experimentation too much, especially if
the only branching activity is for releases.
