Hi Peter, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 20 January 2015 at 05:44, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: [snip] >> 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. >> >> 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. > > Some initial discussion has been done on GitHub already but the rest > will be drawn out slightly by the implementation stages which will be > outside of commons. > > The two reasons that I recall for bringing the issue up are that > contributors who want to follow the progress of the discussion but not > contribute don't want to commit to filtering messages and going > through the unsubscribe/subscribe process if they want to leave the > discussion temporarily (yes, if you know how its quite easy but its a > big deal for some), Sorry, but that sounds to me a bit like "Wash me, but do not make me wet!" > and the other reason was that we don't want to > push our traffic onto everyone who isn't familiar with RDF and isn't > interested in the fine technical aspects of finalising the API. And how should then the other ~200 potential committers of Commons (like me) get interested and drawn in? Or take care, that a release fulfills the Apache requirements? > There > are some general computing issues to deal with as always, particularly > given that Java-8 is so new and patterns haven't been widely > understood yet, but the vast majority will be wrangling an API to sit > on top of our respective codebases and provide interoperability. The > only way we have found to do that so far has been to use the W3C > RDF-1.1 specification as the arbiter, which should be okay, but there > is a lot of back and forth discussion about it on fine grained issues. > > The tendency so far has been, since some of us are not paid > specifically to work on the relevant code, that once pull requests are > suggested, the discussion gets going for a few days and then falls > off. And eventually, once the API is stable it will fall off > altogether to almost zero. That last reason is the main reason for why > a TLP will not suit us, as TLP are encouraged to stay active and > develop new features for their libraries or get shutdown. OK, but this implies that one of those 200 Commons committers above is interested enough to create a maintenance release nevertheless in case of a problem. Or can you be absolutely sure, that you're still around in - let's say 5 years? The community will. > It is also > why commons would be useful to us, but we are a little worried about > having to have users subscribe to a high-traffic mailing list to > discuss the API. It's about joining a (caring) community. And this is different to Github. [snip] Cheers, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
