On 5/19/11 2:21 PM, 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 Seriously, I think that as stated, the rule is obsolete; but the 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?
I left a "should" out above - what I meant to say is that "we *should* agree to take ourselves off the lists when we are no longer contributing or seriously thinking about it." The idea is that you remove yourself as you do when you leave a PMC - announcing intent and then adding yourself back if you become active again. The reason that I thought it might be best to make this a list different from the pom list is because it is not about recognition, or historical contributions, but instead about commitment and current interest. When thinking about dormancy or offlist nudging it is useful to know who has eyes on / interest in a component and per comments elsewhere on this thread, that set is not always the same as those who have committed to the component recently. Phil >> Phil >>> Hen >>> >>> [A slight lie; I once committed a doap file to Tapestry and got yelled >>> at, but that wasn't Commons] >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
