On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Santiago Gala wrote:
> I feel happy that TLPs have to exercise judgement calls. They decide if
> a small component is appropriate, the incubator handles IP clearance
> oversight and they adopt the one/two committers, handing community
> oversight. What is wrong? i
El vie, 17-04-2009 a las 10:41 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin escribió:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> >
> >> * IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively
> >> admitting a graduating podlin
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> IMHO more process is sadly inevitable as apache scales
If so, I think something dies with it... And critics saying that ASF
is not sustainable was right. Well
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org -
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> wrote:
>
>> opinions?
>
> Is there any purpose beyond having a process for process sake and, as
> you say, avoiding PMCs to make judgment calls??
AIUI the board and membership charge
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> opinions?
Is there any purpose beyond having a process for process sake and, as
you say, avoiding PMCs to make judgment calls??
Are we moving from meritocracy to bureaucracy, where process matters
more than thinking? Please spell it
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> We have enough instruments and proof that the incubator works for
> small projects as well. Ivy is one such project.
there's always an exception to any rule :-)
though a small codebase, ivy had quite a broad community and the ant
projec
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
>> * IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively
>> admitting a graduating podling as a subproject is of great weight with
>> regard to whether the aggregate co
We have enough instruments and proof that the incubator works for
small projects as well. Ivy is one such project.
Martijn
On Friday, April 17, 2009, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>> Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
>> go through incubation or not.
>
> That should be the case;
> 1. IF there is a community --> Incubation.
>
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> Subject: RE: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 11:30 AM
> Matt Benson wrote:
>
> > I'll apologize in ad
Matt Benson wrote:
> I'll apologize in advance because I will probably sound like a total dick
in this email being
> that I'm irritated for unrelated reasons at the moment.
LOL Sorry to hear it, but I must have missed the part where you were so
acting.
> let it now be known that Commons will not
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> From: Niclas Hedhman
> Subject: Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 4:47 AM
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM,
> Matt Benson
>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> * IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively admitting
> a graduating podling as a subproject is of great weight with regard to
> whether the aggregate community situation would meet volume + diversity
> requirements
/09, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> From: Jochen Wiedmann
> Subject: Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 3:34 AM
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM,
> Niclas Hedhman
> wrote:
> > O
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>
>> Commons is working *now*. Just as Jakarta was working once. But
>> Commons will most likely no longer work when it is growing too much.
>> And the things discussed here (making
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> Commons is working *now*. Just as Jakarta was working once. But
> Commons will most likely no longer work when it is growing too much.
> And the things discussed here (making Commons the target of many new
> subprojects, which aren't integ
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> From: Jochen Wiedmann
> Subject: Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 1:22 AM
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:42 AM,
> Niclas Hedhman
> wrot
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:28 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 14/04/2009, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> wrote:
>>
>> > To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could "graduate" into Commons?
>> > Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active committers, upon
El mar, 14-04-2009 a las 10:28 +0100, sebb escribió:
> On 14/04/2009, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > wrote:
> >
> > > To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could "graduate" into Commons?
> > > Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active commit
On 14/04/2009, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
> > To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could "graduate" into Commons?
> > Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active committers, upon a
> > vote of the Incubator and in particular of the
2009/4/14 Noel J. Bergman :
> Craig Russell wrote:
>
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> > Torsten Curdt wrote:
Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
or even a sub project
>>> We agree! We have several projects here that I believe belong in
>>> Commons!
>> For example,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could "graduate" into Commons?
> Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active committers, upon a
> vote of the Incubator and in particular of the project's mentors.
>
> Sounds like a plan to me: acce
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> A very reasonable alternative might be that the Incubator decides "Ok, this
> project did its housework and could leave the Incubator, apart from
> community issues. Why not offer it to some project as a subproject?"
> And this project
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> There seems to be some concern in Commons that committers are a threat
> to the existing codebase.
I know the concerns you mention and felt them very much in the
discussion about JSch. But, at least for me personally, I don't think
that's
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
>> or even a sub project
>
> We agree! We have several projects here that I believe belong in Commons!
May be. But please consider the following:
- Commons won't be able
Craig Russell wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
>>> or even a sub project
>> We agree! We have several projects here that I believe belong in
>> Commons!
> For example, we have a great little project called
On Apr 13, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Torsten Curdt wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
That's code. What about community, Torsten? What is the
Community? It
has
been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects. Is
that to
change? We do not want Apache Commons to tu
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> The primary obstacle to Commons using the normal Incubator practices is the
> community exit requirements. We feel that, due to the small size/scope of a
> Commons component, a podling graduating into Commons should be able to do so
> with
Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > That's code. What about community, Torsten? What is the Community? It
has
> > been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects. Is that to
> > change? We do not want Apache Commons to turn into an umbrella, right?
We
> > need to keep
El lun, 13-04-2009 a las 18:29 +0200, Torsten Curdt escribió:
> No harsh feelings but I give up. You do not hear what I am saying.
>
I tend to agree with Niclas in this area, though the last exchanges you
had with Noel led me closer to understand the points we seem to be
missing. I guess we are u
oel J. Bergman wrote:
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 9:49 PM
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > Matt Benson
> wrote:
> > > The Commons Incubator would act
No harsh feelings but I give up. You do not hear what I am saying.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 14:32, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>> Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
>> go through incubation or not.
>
> That sho
On Apr 9, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
Note: Resending due to my having neglected the [PROPOSAL] subject
line earlier.
==
Commons Incubator Proposal
ABSTRACT
The Commons Incubator would act as a "perpetual podling" or "mini-
Incubator" overseeing the in
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
> go through incubation or not.
That should be the case;
1. IF there is a community --> Incubation.
2. IF there is no community --> IP Clearance.
With 2-4 *active* peo
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:15, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> And the person
>> should be considered more trustworthy than most with respect to making
>> patches, given that they are the contributors of the code in the first
>> place.
>
> Well,
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:15, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means
> to
>> join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain trust
>> with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a
> committer.
>
> T
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 04:34, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
>
> That's code. What about community, Torsten? What is the Community? It has
> been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects. Is that to
> change? We do not want Ap
> My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means
to
> join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain trust
> with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a
committer.
Trust related to what? Keep in mind that Committer != PMC member,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Matt Benson wrote:
> > The Commons Incubator would act as a "perpetual podling" or
> > "mini-Incubator" overseeing the influx of components to be
> > adopted into Apache Commons.
> -1 (vote, not veto).
-1 from me, at least for now, for the same reasons:
> If Commons
> Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
That's code. What about community, Torsten? What is the Community? It has
been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects. Is that to
change? We do not want Apache Commons to turn into an umbrella, right? We
need to keep
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>
>> You're insinuating too much here. Simply put the commons PMC would
>> want to see committers in action before making them full blown Commons
>> committers. This is no different
El dom, 12-04-2009 a las 12:35 +0800, Niclas Hedhman escribió:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>
> > You're insinuating too much here. Simply put the commons PMC would
> > want to see committers in action before making them full blown Commons
> > committers. This is no
El sáb, 11-04-2009 a las 19:56 +1000, Gavin escribió:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: tcu...@vafer.org [mailto:tcu...@vafer.org] On Behalf Of Torsten
> > Curdt
> > Sent: Saturday, 11 April 2009 7:26 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Su
El sáb, 11-04-2009 a las 11:28 +0200, Torsten Curdt escribió:
> > I think this is a self-imposed constraint.
>
> Indeed it is.
>
> > Many other projects have no
> > problem bringing in 'bulk' via IP Clearance and taking in one or two
> > committers with it.
>
> Well, some do :) That's why now th
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> You're insinuating too much here. Simply put the commons PMC would
> want to see committers in action before making them full blown Commons
> committers. This is no different from any of the other incubations
> that then graduate into an e
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
>>
>> Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2 developers.
>> They want to bring this code to Commons. What
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 21:24, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Gavin wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: tcu...@vafer.org [mailto:tcu...@vafer.org] On Behalf Of Torsten
>
>
>
>>> The incubator approach just doesn't work well for projects that have a
>
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Gavin wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: tcu...@vafer.org [mailto:tcu...@vafer.org] On Behalf Of Torsten
>> The incubator approach just doesn't work well for projects that have a
>> very small scope and user base IMO.
+1
the smaller the code base,
--- On Sat, 4/11/09, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> From: Torsten Curdt
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009, 5:44 AM
> > My view, and I believe Torstens
> view is that to become a committer means to
&
> My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means to
> join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain trust
> with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a committer.
> Now if someone has a nice great big chunk of code, or even a whol
> -Original Message-
> From: tcu...@vafer.org [mailto:tcu...@vafer.org] On Behalf Of Torsten
> Curdt
> Sent: Saturday, 11 April 2009 7:26 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:22, Nicla
> I think this is a self-imposed constraint.
Indeed it is.
> Many other projects have no
> problem bringing in 'bulk' via IP Clearance and taking in one or two
> committers with it.
Well, some do :) That's why now there is the proposal I guess ;)
cheers
--
Torsten
-
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:22, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
>>
>> Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2 developers.
>> They want to bring this code to Commons. What to
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> The current state of affairs makes it highly impractical for any codebase
> that includes IP from a non-ASF-committer to enter Apache Commons.
I think this is a self-imposed constraint. Many other projects have no
problem bringing in 'bulk'
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
>
> Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2 developers.
> They want to bring this code to Commons. What to do? IP clearance is
> one thing. But what about the 2 devel
:
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> > From: Torsten Curdt
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 5:32 AM
> > Well, the point is: we are
> > talking about
--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> From: Torsten Curdt
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 5:32 AM
> Well, the point is: we are
> talking about small libraries.
>
> Imagine ther
Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2 developers.
They want to bring this code to Commons. What to do? IP clearance is
one thing. But what about the 2 developers? Just make them committers
while they have no clue about A
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
>> The Commons Incubator would act as a "perpetual podling" or "mini-Incubator"
>> overseeing the influx of components to be adopted into Apache Commons.
>
> -1 (vote, not veto).
>
> I
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> The Commons Incubator would act as a "perpetual podling" or "mini-Incubator"
> overseeing the influx of components to be adopted into Apache Commons.
-1 (vote, not veto).
If Commons PMC wants to import code, then it can file IP clearances.
If
Note: Resending due to my having neglected the [PROPOSAL] subject line earlier.
==
Commons Incubator Proposal
ABSTRACT
The Commons Incubator would act as a "perpetual podling" or "mini-Incubator"
overseeing the influx of components to be adopted into Apache Commons.
61 matches
Mail list logo
