On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:44, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:24 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:16 +0000, ant elder wrote: >> >> so about 6 months ago to try to help with problems they were having, >> >> and since then 99% of the commits have been made by only two people. >> > >> > I assume you're referring to Jonathan Ellis and myself, and I'm not sure >> > that's exactly fair. There are only 4 active committers, and of the 4, >> > Jonathan and I spend the most time committing patches contributed by >> > people who can't, and quite often the "review" was conducted by someone >> > else who doesn't have commit rights and we are simply acting as a proxy. >> > This results in a lot of svn commits made by us, for contributions that >> > are not technically ours. >> > >> > As a convention, we typically put something like "Patch by $author; >> > reviewed by $reviewer for $issue_id" in the change description. I just >> > went through the commits scraping out those messages and it looks like >> > Jonathan and I account for a little more than 60%, not 99%. >> > >> > -- >> > Eric Evans >> > eev...@rackspace.com >> > >> >> So about 40% of the committed code is coming from others and reviewed >> by others - great - why not make some of those others committers? >> >> > That's pretty much what they're doing about right now but as you know, it > takes some time to establish a good patch history. I really don't thin > Cassandra should be accused of being bad at attracting and voting in new > committers. Given how they started they're definitely better at it than most > podlings.
Easy there... nobody is accusing anybody of anything. You asked a question, and people have answered. Some of those answers have come with concerns. That generates discussion. I think it is good for any project to review why it is operating *differently* than the majority of projects here at the ASF. Why is it "special"? Are those special considerations actually masking a problem underneath? Are those special processes going to hinder the free and inclusive participation and community-building that we like to see in our projects? It's fair to ask those questions, especially of a podling. But please don't misconstrue discussion as accusation. Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
