Please see below: On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> Seriously, Can you please give me one concrete instance where a user >> gave up because it was too hard? > > It falls into a few situations: > 1) Without stuff in the main repo, you cannot do plugins that do things > similar to the "mvn jetty:run" and have maven pick them up without wacky > changes to your ~/.m2/settings.xml which would then affect all projects.
Is this the average user that uses the build process to generate jars that they use? > 2) It IS a support burden on the community as people ask "why can't it find > it?" even if you document the hell out of it. People tend to not read docs > when they expect their tool to work like it always works. Maven people > expect to just declare dependencies and have it work. When it doesn't they > get frustrated and blame the project for not deploying things correctly and > move on. Well, then the tools should have a way to inform users that there may be additional configuration steps needed. > 3) This is the killer one: we did have xfire folks not able to migrate as > the corporate firewalls and proxies and such would NOT allow access to > people.apache.org. (to be fair, they didn't allow direct access to central > either, but their internal repo managers did have access, but only to very > limitted repos like central and java.net) Then maybe mvn is the wrong tool? :) > 4) A couple of the recent versions of the archetype plugin was unable to > create projects from archetypes not available in central. Yes, it was a bug > in the plugin, but it affected any archetypes not in central. With mavens > < 2.0.9's broken "automatically grab the latest plugin" thing, creating > projects from archetypes for anything not in central was impossible. (yes, > that was a bug in the plugin and the maven team did fix it fairly quickly, > but only incubator projects would have been affected.....) > > So yes, there are instances. see above > >> Again, Are u stating that removing this restriction would have reduced >> the time taken to graduate from 2 years to 1 year? > > We'll never know. It certainly affected some of the features we > concentrated on and thus may or may not have affected who we could have > attracted as committers. It would all be conjecture. I know it DID > prevent people migrating from xfire (see above) so I know our user base was > lower than it could have been. guess we'll never know. >> We are *NOT* here to rubber stamp external code. Which is what we will >> become. > > Huh? We would be approving proper Apache Incubator releases and making > sure the meet Apache legal requirements prior to release. How is that > rubber stamping external code? Sorry "external" is a wrong word here. > > Basically, IMO, if a release from an incubator project completely meets ALL > the legal requirements (none of the "it's ok, fix it for next time" things), > it legally can go to central and it should. (also, this means the project > needs to have all the CLA's for the imported code, all the LGPL stuff > resolved, etc...) Saying incubator releases can only be used in places and > with tools that will prompt with a "this is an incubator artifact, us it? > y/n" is, IMO, placing a field of use restriction on them which is against > our own ideals. We need a way to inform our users that a community may not form in the code that they are using. Seriously, it's far away from FOU's. > Should maven have a feature that the user can enable to allow various > filtering and stuff, certainly. That's a great idea. For users that > care, that would be great. Should it be required? IMO, no. The license > the artifacts are distributed under doesn't require it and thus, legally, > it's not required. See last comment above. > Dan > > > >> My feeling is that pmc members are taking their mentor role more >> prominence over incubator pmc role which is to make sure we setup >> meaningful mechanisms to make sure all aspects are balanced. >> >> In this specific case, a trivial road block has been lifted and >> incubator is no longer what it is supposed to be. There are no longer >> any checks/balances in the system, >> >> So we should just promote IP Clearance as the primary mechanism and >> get existing pmc's or even this PMC to just go ahead and rubber stamp >> code and get it over with. >> >> thanks, >> dims >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry...Need to take this off my chest before the official VOTE. >>>> >>>> Looking at the maven repo thread, begs the question. Do we really need >>>> an incubator? >>>> >>>> Isn't it just a IP Clearance SVN now once people have their way with >>>> no distinction at all between incubator and non-incubator code? >>>> >>>> What incentives are there left to graduate? How come a little bit of >>>> pain that makes something obvious to end users is such a no-no? Why is >>>> it such a big deal to remove one tiny pebble in their path? A lot of >>>> folks have made it thru...including CXF. gathering users on the merits >>>> of their code/community. It's not like the pebble stopped users from >>>> trying things out. So what's the big deal? >>> >>> Honestly, I think CXF would have graduated significantly sooner if the >>> central maven repo was used. We specifically did not do a lot of >>> "maven" >>> things (like creating archtypes and such) due to the extra difficulty in >>> using those things. We don't yet use maven for any of the >>> samples/demos, >>> etc.... It IS a major barrier for a lot people so we didn't >>> concentrate >>> on it. Had the code gone to central, we could have worked on that as >>> well >>> which would have opened up new opportunities for "mavenites" to get >>> involved. >>> >>> So, my question is, if Apache is about "Community over code", why are we >>> putting up barriers to getting the code if that is also creating barriers >>> to >>> building the community? If the code is a proper release (legally OK, >>> etc...), making it hard to use/get hinders the building of the community. >>> Do we like projects taking 2 years to graduate or would we prefer that >>> time >>> to be shorter? >>> >>> So, to answer your question: yes, I think the incubator is important. >>> It >>> does legal vetting, but it also makes sure the communities are acting >>> proper, learning apache ways, etc.... But the incubator should HELP the >>> communities grow, not hinder it. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My 2 cents, >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> dims >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>> >>> --- >>> Daniel Kulp >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://www.dankulp.com/blog >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > --- > Daniel Kulp > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
