I would have thought that graduation would be all about showing that whatever
list of committers we have (big or small) is working well? Having a large
number of committers certainly makes sense with a subversion mindset but it's
possibly an anti-pattern with a DVCS mindset (at least for a stable language in
any case)?
The Groovy community has always valued the actual code contribution more than
who the person was who contributedthe code. I hope we can continue in that
fashion.
Obviously, there are logistics concerns, you need enough committers to handle
the administrative tasks involved (and that will change with less full-time
people contributing on that side perhaps), so we should expect changes. And,
the voting is a bit different to what we have done in the past, so making that
work well will be important too. I just hope we are targeting a working system
rather than some magic number of committers.
Cheers, Paul.
On 12/03/2015 7:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote:
...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
commiters are only 5...
As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
community before graduating.
The alternative would be to start with a huge list of initial
committers ("everybody who contributed more than X to Groovy") and
before graduating reduce it to the list of people who actually
contributed during incubation, but that's much more work IMO.
-Bertrand
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
