sebb wrote: > On 19 May 2011 06:34, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/18/11 9:36 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: >>> The following rule seems unnecessary to me: >>> >>> 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 Seriously, I think that as stated, the rule is obsolete; but the 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. >> >> 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. > > I think it's reasonable for developers to add their own name (if they > wish) to the pom if they have made a non-trivial contribution to the > component. > The list of developers and contributors will of course grow over time. > > I see the pom as being a way of recognising developers and > contributors (rather than the deprecated @author tags) so it's > important that the list is historic, not just current. > > If we really need to record who is currently working on a component > (generally that's obvious from SVN commits and the dev list), then I > agree that a STATUS file or similar would be better than the Wiki. But > I'm not sure it's essential. > > How do names get removed when they are no longer active?
A committer is a committer, but we can utilize the role element on the Maven pom. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
