Martijn Dashorst wrote: > Sorry for this lengthy response, but I got a negative vibe from > several reactions to this thread and I feel a need to vent my > concerns. > > First I am a big fan of Apache and the Apache community. I think that > the way Apache works is a great example of how a community effort can > produce great software. I think that the Wicket community is well on > its way to work in a similar fashion and would be a great addition to > the healthy community found at the ASF. I see several projects inside > ASF already working with Wicket and we always have shown interest in > working with Apache projects or using them. > > I saw a quote on the Wicket mailing list stating that 'SF.net is a > repository of open source projects and Apache is a community of people > working on open source projects' (sorry if I didn't quote this > correctly). This means IMO that PEOPLE are more important than > PROCESS. When Wicket is incubated, I fully intend to include as much > people from our community as possible. > > Someone suggested to fork the Wicket project into two: one at ASF for > Wicket 2.x and one at our current location (sf.net) for Wicket 1.x. A > forked community parted between 1.x and 2.x would be a disservice to > the Wicket community and I seriously frown upon such a suggestion. > This gives a message to those that they are not considered 'worthy' of > Apache. If the ASF is really concerned with building an open source > community, then the ASF should be working very hard to include > everyone. > > The knife cuts both ways: the Wicket community has to bite through > some hard bits, but so does the ASF imo. For us the hard bits will be > the loss of our total freedom to do whatever we want with our > framework (for instance, the possibility to incorporate any (L)GPL > code in our product), a (somewhat) more bureaucratic way of working, > and having to go through the incubation process which is uncertain and > will slow down the project. > > I am willing to bite through these bitter parts and join the ASF, but > only if ASF *also* is willing to accept some of Wicket's quirks. One > of those is to be able to build releases for our community, and make > them available at a convenient place with enough bandwidth and with > the quality people expect. > > Another is not having to rename all packages (in our 1.x branch) to > org.apache.wicket. Though this is a trivial thing to do, we strive to > keep API changes to a minimum between 1.y releases. Renaming *all* > packages doesn't add value for our users and only creates a major > inconvenience for them. Note that I don't have any problem with > renaming the packages for our 2.x branch to org.apache.wicket.
You say "One of those is to be able to build releases for our community": do you mean that you are unhappy with the stated need to release from Apache and mark with "Incubating" (i.e. you want to release 1.x from SF)? Or if you were to bring the 1.x branches over to Apache, would you be prepared to swallow the bitter pill of 'incubator' markings on those releases? As a side note, another issue I have noted regarding releases is that Incubator releases aren't allowed until all paperwork is in place. I would intend to have all paperwork in place before incubation begins, so that releases can be done soon in the incubation process. Regards, Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
