On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin <rdon...@apache.org>wrote:
> On 05/19/11 06:34, Phil Steitz wrote: > > On 5/18/11 9:36 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > >> The following rule seems unnecessary to me: > +1 It should not be a rule. Does anyone know Maven enough to write a "svn-report" like there is a "jira-report"? Gary > >> > >> http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CommonsEtiquette#Commons_Etiquette > >> > >> "each committer who commits to a component must add their name to the > >> STATUS file" (or pom.xml) > >> > >> I've never done this, have touched every component (give or take a > >> component or two) and have never had negative feedback*. Either > >> everyone's being very polite or it's not actually a necessary piece of > >> etiquette :) > > > > Well, now that you mention it, your wanton pillaging has left a > > trail of devastation and fear in the hearts of Commoners across the > > realm - he he. > > :-) > > > Seriously, I think that as stated, the rule is obsolete; but the > > spirit of it is good. When that was originally written, components > > were all independently built using Ant, sites were, lets just say > > "diverse," mostly built using Anakia, and most of what people worked > > on was actual code internal to the components. So when you started > > committing to a component, that meant you were going to really get > > into its code and join the little subcommunity that was working on > > it. You signaled that by adding yourself to the STATUS file. > > > > Partly because we have added complexity and inter-dependency to the > > build and site generation processes, partly because people have > > shown willingness and interest in doing these things, we now have a > > decent incidence of people "touching" components without really > > jumping in to the code that deeply. I think that is a *good thing* > > as it helps keep the code and sites in better shape. > > +1 > > > I still think it is a good idea for us to keep something like a > > STATUS file up to date indicating who the active committers are for > > each component. I am not sure, honestly, if the pom.xml team list > > is the right place for this, though; as it is more > > externally-facing, gets published as part of releases, etc. The > > current poms are also full of references to people who have not > > contributed in quite a while. The value of having a team list that > > committers add themselves to and drop off of is that adding oneself > > is a statement of real interest in the component and willingness to > > help move it forward. There are some old Wiki pages somewhere where > > we started to track this kind of thing; but IMO the component's svn > > is a better place. > > > > So bottom line is I think the rule should stand with s/commits to a > > component/makes a nontrivial change to a component/ and s/STATUS > > file (or pom.xml)/not sure, maybe stay with pom/ > > I also think we agree to take ourselves off of the lists when we are > > no longer contributing or seriously thinking about it - similar to > > the unwritten rule about taking yourself off a PMC. > > sounds reasonable to me :-) > > Robert > > (who made a foolish promise at Apache Retreat to take a look at Nick's > validator patch and see whether it makes sense) > > (my computer time is still limited so please limit those expectations) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
