On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
<phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>
>> Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the
Commons RDF
>> project?
> I don't think we should make an exception. Setting up mail
filters isn't
> that difficult.
+1
We don't have "subprojects" or "projects" within Commons. As Mark
pointed out, that is not allowed at the ASF. If you want to have
a
separate project with separate lists, etc., then you need to go
TLP.
All are welcome to join us. This looks like an interesting
component that would be broadly useful. Interesting people,
problems and code. Welcome, all!
But we are not just a groupId here. All of our components benefit
from the combined eyeballs we have. That is how it works and
how it
*has* to work according to our charter and ASF "anti-umbrella"
rules.
Well said. Commons is a project with components, RDF would be
another
component.
Words without semantics...
Looking up "apache project component" in a web search engine
turned out:
* "HttpComponents"
Here, the "components" are all related to "Http". Not so in
"Commons".
* "Camel-extra"
Herer (IIUC), the "components" all depend on a single
framework. Not
so in "Commons".
* Others use the term "components" to describe the "sub-units"
(for my
lacking of a better synonym of "component"...) of the software.
Not
so in "Commons".
No. Umbrella projects are not allowed at the ASF.
What is the Apache definition of "umbrella project"?
I'm understanding that the Apache policy forbids something (fine,
that's not the point).
Yet "Commons" is an umbrella (not what Apache calls an umbrella,
OK, since by policy that umbrella connat exist...) that groups
unrelated bits of code.
That is why
Jakarta was broken up. That is also why Hadoop is not one great big
umbrella. When sub-things get large enough, they become separate
projects. HttpComponents is actually a good example. That used to
be part of Commons.
Is "large enough" the only criterion? What is "large enough"?
Obviously, the policy forbidding some things (like a manageable
ML traffic) is causing problems to some would-be contributors.
Rdf-commons would seem a "little" project (in terms of code, IIUC),
a fine fit for a place like "Commons"; yet they are forced out
because of a side issue. A loss for them, and a loss for "Commons".
Does that make sense?
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
