On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Gilles, > > Gilles wrote: > > > 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"? > > If the people caring for one component think they are better off with an > own > Apache community i.e. they make "their" component a TLP. > > > > > 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? > > Yes, the shared resources are part of the Apache Commons community. It was > especially built to increase the responsibility of all committers for all > components. Jakarta had a long history of died subprojects, because nobody > even recognized the death of it. Vfs as separate project would have been in > the attic long ago. Not in commons because there are always some people who > care enough at least to maintain it. And suddenly such a component can > gather new activity. > Indeed, and [vfs] will soon release again; without Commons its fate would have likely been quite different. > What do you expect from a rdf component implementing the API only? You will > see for the first weeks some increased activity and then it decreases. And > that's obviously a good thing for a component that offers only a stable > contract. The devs will concentrate on their individual implementation in > the long run. > It seems to me that Commons works pretty well. Some components are active, other less so, some go up and down. I believe firmly that all components benefit greatly from the oversight of the whole Commons community. Yes, that means using one dev ML and one user ML, the simplest solution for communication. Here, the sum is greater that the parts. The inconvenience perceived by some by a busy ML is perhaps a reflection of the lack of interest in Commons as a whole. In which case, if navel gazing at one's only component of interest is a requirement, then perhaps a different smaller, less altruistic home is best for that code and its coders. Gary > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
