You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to -deprecated@jakarta.apache.org by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com> on 2001/03/16 12:19:23 UTC
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> I realize it is a small issue ( that can be resolved later or worked
> around ), but most of the emails are making the sandbox equivalent with a
> playground for untested code.
Some people may use it that way. Others may not. It is a place designed
for tolerance and varied viewpoints. A DMZ for revolutions.
> A component that is built by a project as part of the sandbox/agora isn't
> supposed to be released to the public - because of quality concerns. Yet a
> component that is accepted by commons commiters can be released, even if
> it has a smaller set of commiters and less review.
Code or documentation cannot be released to the public directly from the
shared CVS for *legal* concerns regarding use of the Apache brand. All
anyone has asked is that one of subprojects using this code release it
with their own codebase. And that is all the clarified #20 says.
"20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
rest of their codebase."
Again, this not just about Agora. We need to write this to apply to
everyone who might also want to use the shared CVS to promote a new
development model. Or work on any type of cross-product material,
whether for submission to the Commons or not.
Once there is Agora code on the table, it's possible that you could
setup an Agora section on the Jakarta Web site, where this code could be
distributed. There could even be an Agora CVS so you would not have to
rub shoulders with "experimental" branches.
The point is that we are trying to make a place where ideas like Agora
can be proved, and once proved, fully deployed.
You're not getting everything you wanted for Agora. Neither Geir nor I
got everything we wanted for the Commons library. (At least not yet;-)
But that's all part of working within a group.
The shared CVS in the Commons is not meant to be Agora. We have tried to
add language so it could be used like Agora, along with other things. At
the time, the operative phrase was "close enough".
<
http://www.mail-archive.com/library-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg00178.html
>
> and I have a problem with arguing that
> a project that wants to release a stand-alone component out of
> sandbox needs to get the aproval of commons.
If the code were accepted into the Commons it would be moved to the
Commons CVS. The guideline is the same for everyone.
-Ted.
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Remy Maucherat <rm...@home.com>.
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
>
> > > A component that is built by a project as part of the sandbox/agora
isn't
> > > supposed to be released to the public - because of quality concerns.
Yet a
> > > component that is accepted by commons commiters can be released, even
if
> > > it has a smaller set of commiters and less review.
> >
> > Code or documentation cannot be released to the public directly from the
> > shared CVS for *legal* concerns regarding use of the Apache brand. All
> > anyone has asked is that one of subprojects using this code release it
> > with their own codebase. And that is all the clarified #20 says.
>
> Can you explain a bit more - what are the legal concerns ? Most of
> us are programmers, and I just can't get it - how the same piece of code
> is "legal" if it is distributed as part of a jakarta project, but it is
> ilegal if it is distributed standalone.
>
> Does that mean that if tomcat is using a threadpool component it can't
> release an upgrade of only the thread pool ? But it become legal if the
> same package is distributed out of commons ?
>
> And how is Apache brand protected by releasing code under a project where
> most voter don't know what they vote on ( since they were not involved in
> the development ), but it's not protected if the code is
> released by a vote of the people who support and test it ?
>
> Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is this
> based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
I totally agree with Costin here. I can't figure out how there can be a
problem since :
- the code was already distributed and available as part of another Jakarta
project
- it's just a matter of moving the code to somewhere else and repackaging it
differently, and anyone outside the ASF can do that (take the threadpool
from TC 3, repackage it standalone, and distribute it)
Remy
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> The last 47 messages have been about adding exactly this sentence to
> guideline #20:
>
> "The sponsoring subproject will distribute the code or documentation
> along with the rest of their codebase."
here's #48 -
Yes, I agree - but, since they can do this anyway, since the code is
APL'ed, I don't quite see why we have to state it.
I am not against stating it - it just appears obvious.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm@optonline.net
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> The last 47 messages have been about adding exactly this sentence to
> guideline #20:
>
> "The sponsoring subproject will distribute the code or documentation
> along with the rest of their codebase."
here's #48 -
Yes, I agree - but, since they can do this anyway, since the code is
APL'ed, I don't quite see why we have to state it.
I am not against stating it - it just appears obvious.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm@optonline.net
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Since the code already exists as part of another ASF project, and since it
> has already been approved according to the ASF rules, I don't see why it
> should be considered "experimental" here, and subject to additional review /
> approval. If the component is bad, nobody will use it, and that's it.
> Sharing code should be as painless as possible, or nobody (including me)
> will share code.
It's not subject to additional review, Remy. We're just want to state
clearly that some subproject somewhere has to release it to the public.
> For components which were outside the Jakarta project, they should indeed be
> subject to approval (but I thought the original mission of commons was to
> share code between the Jakarta projects).
We're talking about the shared CVS here, which is only available to
Jakarta committers (every Jakarta committer).
The last 47 messages have been about adding exactly this sentence to
guideline #20:
"The sponsoring subproject will distribute the code or documentation
along with the rest of their codebase."
-Ted.
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Since the code already exists as part of another ASF project, and since it
> has already been approved according to the ASF rules, I don't see why it
> should be considered "experimental" here, and subject to additional review /
> approval. If the component is bad, nobody will use it, and that's it.
> Sharing code should be as painless as possible, or nobody (including me)
> will share code.
It's not subject to additional review, Remy. We're just want to state
clearly that some subproject somewhere has to release it to the public.
> For components which were outside the Jakarta project, they should indeed be
> subject to approval (but I thought the original mission of commons was to
> share code between the Jakarta projects).
We're talking about the shared CVS here, which is only available to
Jakarta committers (every Jakarta committer).
The last 47 messages have been about adding exactly this sentence to
guideline #20:
"The sponsoring subproject will distribute the code or documentation
along with the rest of their codebase."
-Ted.
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Remy Maucherat <rm...@home.com>.
> cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is
this
> > based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
>
> For now, I am suggesting that we propose to do what we know is safe. I
> mentioned before that if Roy said it was OK, then I would have no qualm.
>
> Roy made it very clear that the PMC's first responsibility was the
> legality of what the programmers are doing.
>
> Right now, the only release process we have is that a subproject votes
> on a specific code base and takes responsibility for distributing and
> supporting the product. Having a shared CVS doesn't change that.
>
> If you would like to propose an alternate release process, I would
> suggest you put something in a proposal that people can vote on, and the
> ASF board can approve.
>
> This is not about Agora. We must cope with any and all committers who
> might use the shared CVS to develop code, and then want to distribute it
> under the Apache brand.
>
> > It's scary that a proposal can be "edited" or "clarified" in such a
> > significant way after it was finalized and without a vote.
>
> This whole thread started as a vote Costin. So far there are five
> positive votes (Craig, Geir, Morgan, David and me), and two negative
> (you and Ignacio).
>
> We haven't made the change yet, since Remy, Rodney, and Conor have not
> voted.
-1.
Since the code already exists as part of another ASF project, and since it
has already been approved according to the ASF rules, I don't see why it
should be considered "experimental" here, and subject to additional review /
approval. If the component is bad, nobody will use it, and that's it.
Sharing code should be as painless as possible, or nobody (including me)
will share code.
For components which were outside the Jakarta project, they should indeed be
subject to approval (but I thought the original mission of commons was to
share code between the Jakarta projects).
Remy
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Remy Maucherat <rm...@home.com>.
> cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is
this
> > based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
>
> For now, I am suggesting that we propose to do what we know is safe. I
> mentioned before that if Roy said it was OK, then I would have no qualm.
>
> Roy made it very clear that the PMC's first responsibility was the
> legality of what the programmers are doing.
>
> Right now, the only release process we have is that a subproject votes
> on a specific code base and takes responsibility for distributing and
> supporting the product. Having a shared CVS doesn't change that.
>
> If you would like to propose an alternate release process, I would
> suggest you put something in a proposal that people can vote on, and the
> ASF board can approve.
>
> This is not about Agora. We must cope with any and all committers who
> might use the shared CVS to develop code, and then want to distribute it
> under the Apache brand.
>
> > It's scary that a proposal can be "edited" or "clarified" in such a
> > significant way after it was finalized and without a vote.
>
> This whole thread started as a vote Costin. So far there are five
> positive votes (Craig, Geir, Morgan, David and me), and two negative
> (you and Ignacio).
>
> We haven't made the change yet, since Remy, Rodney, and Conor have not
> voted.
-1.
Since the code already exists as part of another ASF project, and since it
has already been approved according to the ASF rules, I don't see why it
should be considered "experimental" here, and subject to additional review /
approval. If the component is bad, nobody will use it, and that's it.
Sharing code should be as painless as possible, or nobody (including me)
will share code.
For components which were outside the Jakarta project, they should indeed be
subject to approval (but I thought the original mission of commons was to
share code between the Jakarta projects).
Remy
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
>
> cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Yes, that's exactly what I said - a jakarta subproject should be able to
> > vote and take responsibility for distributing a product - it can be
> > developed in it's own workspace or in a shared CVS.
>
> I just don't understand what the problem is, Costin. Doesn't the
> proposed #20 say that?
>
> If it makes any difference, we could probably strike "the accepted to
> the commons part", and just say
>
> "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> public, code or documentation developed here must be sponsored by a
> Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring subproject will distribute the code
> or documentation along with the rest of their codebase."
That seems to solve it all - If Commons is that subproject, then
Commons would have to approve accepting it as part of its
'distributables'. Further, it places no restrictions on the activities
within that CVS repository...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm@optonline.net
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
>
> cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Yes, that's exactly what I said - a jakarta subproject should be able to
> > vote and take responsibility for distributing a product - it can be
> > developed in it's own workspace or in a shared CVS.
>
> I just don't understand what the problem is, Costin. Doesn't the
> proposed #20 say that?
>
> If it makes any difference, we could probably strike "the accepted to
> the commons part", and just say
>
> "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> public, code or documentation developed here must be sponsored by a
> Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring subproject will distribute the code
> or documentation along with the rest of their codebase."
That seems to solve it all - If Commons is that subproject, then
Commons would have to approve accepting it as part of its
'distributables'. Further, it places no restrictions on the activities
within that CVS repository...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm@optonline.net
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yes, that's exactly what I said - a jakarta subproject should be able to
> vote and take responsibility for distributing a product - it can be
> developed in it's own workspace or in a shared CVS.
I just don't understand what the problem is, Costin. Doesn't the
proposed #20 say that?
If it makes any difference, we could probably strike "the accepted to
the commons part", and just say
"20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
public, code or documentation developed here must be sponsored by a
Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring subproject will distribute the code
or documentation along with the rest of their codebase."
-Ted.
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yes, that's exactly what I said - a jakarta subproject should be able to
> vote and take responsibility for distributing a product - it can be
> developed in it's own workspace or in a shared CVS.
I just don't understand what the problem is, Costin. Doesn't the
proposed #20 say that?
If it makes any difference, we could probably strike "the accepted to
the commons part", and just say
"20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
public, code or documentation developed here must be sponsored by a
Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring subproject will distribute the code
or documentation along with the rest of their codebase."
-Ted.
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
> cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is this
> > based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
>
> For now, I am suggesting that we propose to do what we know is safe. I
> mentioned before that if Roy said it was OK, then I would have no qualm.
>
> Roy made it very clear that the PMC's first responsibility was the
> legality of what the programmers are doing.
We are talking about commons - which is not the PMC. And the discussion is
about whether a jakarta project can release a standalone component or not
- with you assuming that only the commons project can do that. Insuring
the legality and the "brand" is shared by all jakarta projects - the
commons are not different in this aspect from any other project ( except
that they'll make decisions about code bases they are not involved with )
> Right now, the only release process we have is that a subproject votes
> on a specific code base and takes responsibility for distributing and
> supporting the product. Having a shared CVS doesn't change that.
Yes, that's exactly what I said - a jakarta subproject should be able to
vote and take responsibility for distributing a product - it can be
developed in it's own workspace or in a shared CVS.
> This is not about Agora. We must cope with any and all committers who
> might use the shared CVS to develop code, and then want to distribute it
> under the Apache brand.
Well - it is about agora, since the change you want to make doesn't affect
or have anything to do with the code developed in the shared workspace by
random developers.
It is about code supported by top-level jakarta projects,
and you restrict their ability to distribute common code, forcing all
components to be under the control of "commons".
Yes, all commiters can develop in the shared workspace - but your change
doesn't have anything to do with that - it's about how jakarta projects
can ( or cannot ) release components.
> > It's scary that a proposal can be "edited" or "clarified" in such a
> > significant way after it was finalized and without a vote.
>
> This whole thread started as a vote Costin. So far there are five
> positive votes (Craig, Geir, Morgan, David and me), and two negative
> (you and Ignacio).
Well, what I said was that I don't want my name associated with a proposal
that makes the code developed and shared by jakarta projects "second
class" and controled by an entity that has nothing to do with it's
development or support.
I didn't realized it was a vote ( it looked to me more like a discussion,
not a formal proposal ), but if this is the case please remove my name
from the proposal. And I must say this is very unfair - we had an
agreement and compromise and then you change it to a no-op ( since
projects are allowed anyway to release apache code - the whole phrase is
just stating what is already aproved and well-known).
> We haven't made the change yet, since Remy, Rodney, and Conor have not
> voted.
Costin
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
> cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is this
> > based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
>
> For now, I am suggesting that we propose to do what we know is safe. I
> mentioned before that if Roy said it was OK, then I would have no qualm.
>
> Roy made it very clear that the PMC's first responsibility was the
> legality of what the programmers are doing.
We are talking about commons - which is not the PMC. And the discussion is
about whether a jakarta project can release a standalone component or not
- with you assuming that only the commons project can do that. Insuring
the legality and the "brand" is shared by all jakarta projects - the
commons are not different in this aspect from any other project ( except
that they'll make decisions about code bases they are not involved with )
> Right now, the only release process we have is that a subproject votes
> on a specific code base and takes responsibility for distributing and
> supporting the product. Having a shared CVS doesn't change that.
Yes, that's exactly what I said - a jakarta subproject should be able to
vote and take responsibility for distributing a product - it can be
developed in it's own workspace or in a shared CVS.
> This is not about Agora. We must cope with any and all committers who
> might use the shared CVS to develop code, and then want to distribute it
> under the Apache brand.
Well - it is about agora, since the change you want to make doesn't affect
or have anything to do with the code developed in the shared workspace by
random developers.
It is about code supported by top-level jakarta projects,
and you restrict their ability to distribute common code, forcing all
components to be under the control of "commons".
Yes, all commiters can develop in the shared workspace - but your change
doesn't have anything to do with that - it's about how jakarta projects
can ( or cannot ) release components.
> > It's scary that a proposal can be "edited" or "clarified" in such a
> > significant way after it was finalized and without a vote.
>
> This whole thread started as a vote Costin. So far there are five
> positive votes (Craig, Geir, Morgan, David and me), and two negative
> (you and Ignacio).
Well, what I said was that I don't want my name associated with a proposal
that makes the code developed and shared by jakarta projects "second
class" and controled by an entity that has nothing to do with it's
development or support.
I didn't realized it was a vote ( it looked to me more like a discussion,
not a formal proposal ), but if this is the case please remove my name
from the proposal. And I must say this is very unfair - we had an
agreement and compromise and then you change it to a no-op ( since
projects are allowed anyway to release apache code - the whole phrase is
just stating what is already aproved and well-known).
> We haven't made the change yet, since Remy, Rodney, and Conor have not
> voted.
Costin
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is this
> based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
For now, I am suggesting that we propose to do what we know is safe. I
mentioned before that if Roy said it was OK, then I would have no qualm.
Roy made it very clear that the PMC's first responsibility was the
legality of what the programmers are doing.
Right now, the only release process we have is that a subproject votes
on a specific code base and takes responsibility for distributing and
supporting the product. Having a shared CVS doesn't change that.
If you would like to propose an alternate release process, I would
suggest you put something in a proposal that people can vote on, and the
ASF board can approve.
This is not about Agora. We must cope with any and all committers who
might use the shared CVS to develop code, and then want to distribute it
under the Apache brand.
> It's scary that a proposal can be "edited" or "clarified" in such a
> significant way after it was finalized and without a vote.
This whole thread started as a vote Costin. So far there are five
positive votes (Craig, Geir, Morgan, David and me), and two negative
(you and Ignacio).
We haven't made the change yet, since Remy, Rodney, and Conor have not
voted.
-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Custom Software ~ Technical Services.
-- Tel 716 737-3463.
-- http://www.husted.com/about/struts/
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is this
> based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
For now, I am suggesting that we propose to do what we know is safe. I
mentioned before that if Roy said it was OK, then I would have no qualm.
Roy made it very clear that the PMC's first responsibility was the
legality of what the programmers are doing.
Right now, the only release process we have is that a subproject votes
on a specific code base and takes responsibility for distributing and
supporting the product. Having a shared CVS doesn't change that.
If you would like to propose an alternate release process, I would
suggest you put something in a proposal that people can vote on, and the
ASF board can approve.
This is not about Agora. We must cope with any and all committers who
might use the shared CVS to develop code, and then want to distribute it
under the Apache brand.
> It's scary that a proposal can be "edited" or "clarified" in such a
> significant way after it was finalized and without a vote.
This whole thread started as a vote Costin. So far there are five
positive votes (Craig, Geir, Morgan, David and me), and two negative
(you and Ignacio).
We haven't made the change yet, since Remy, Rodney, and Conor have not
voted.
-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Custom Software ~ Technical Services.
-- Tel 716 737-3463.
-- http://www.husted.com/about/struts/
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by Remy Maucherat <rm...@home.com>.
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
>
> > > A component that is built by a project as part of the sandbox/agora
isn't
> > > supposed to be released to the public - because of quality concerns.
Yet a
> > > component that is accepted by commons commiters can be released, even
if
> > > it has a smaller set of commiters and less review.
> >
> > Code or documentation cannot be released to the public directly from the
> > shared CVS for *legal* concerns regarding use of the Apache brand. All
> > anyone has asked is that one of subprojects using this code release it
> > with their own codebase. And that is all the clarified #20 says.
>
> Can you explain a bit more - what are the legal concerns ? Most of
> us are programmers, and I just can't get it - how the same piece of code
> is "legal" if it is distributed as part of a jakarta project, but it is
> ilegal if it is distributed standalone.
>
> Does that mean that if tomcat is using a threadpool component it can't
> release an upgrade of only the thread pool ? But it become legal if the
> same package is distributed out of commons ?
>
> And how is Apache brand protected by releasing code under a project where
> most voter don't know what they vote on ( since they were not involved in
> the development ), but it's not protected if the code is
> released by a vote of the people who support and test it ?
>
> Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is this
> based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
I totally agree with Costin here. I can't figure out how there can be a
problem since :
- the code was already distributed and available as part of another Jakarta
project
- it's just a matter of moving the code to somewhere else and repackaging it
differently, and anyone outside the ASF can do that (take the threadpool
from TC 3, repackage it standalone, and distribute it)
Remy
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
> > A component that is built by a project as part of the sandbox/agora isn't
> > supposed to be released to the public - because of quality concerns. Yet a
> > component that is accepted by commons commiters can be released, even if
> > it has a smaller set of commiters and less review.
>
> Code or documentation cannot be released to the public directly from the
> shared CVS for *legal* concerns regarding use of the Apache brand. All
> anyone has asked is that one of subprojects using this code release it
> with their own codebase. And that is all the clarified #20 says.
Can you explain a bit more - what are the legal concerns ? Most of
us are programmers, and I just can't get it - how the same piece of code
is "legal" if it is distributed as part of a jakarta project, but it is
ilegal if it is distributed standalone.
Does that mean that if tomcat is using a threadpool component it can't
release an upgrade of only the thread pool ? But it become legal if the
same package is distributed out of commons ?
And how is Apache brand protected by releasing code under a project where
most voter don't know what they vote on ( since they were not involved in
the development ), but it's not protected if the code is
released by a vote of the people who support and test it ?
Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is this
based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
> "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
> Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
> subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
> rest of their codebase."
>
> Again, this not just about Agora. We need to write this to apply to
> everyone who might also want to use the shared CVS to promote a new
> development model. Or work on any type of cross-product material,
> whether for submission to the Commons or not.
Again - I don't understand. "Agora" is when a jakarta project is
developing the code in the common repository and is taking responsibility
for it ( with other jakarta projects maybe ).
Other development models ( like experimental code, etc ) is not sponsored
by a project - if there is a project that supports and maintain the code
we are in Agora case. So how adding a restriction on Agora ( the case
where the code is developed by a project in common ) will affect the
case of "experimental" or "everyone" case.
> The shared CVS in the Commons is not meant to be Agora. We have tried to
> add language so it could be used like Agora, along with other things. At
> the time, the operative phrase was "close enough".
And now you basically change the language that was "close enough", with a
change that affects only Agora anyway.
( the clarification doesn't affect anything else - only the code that is
developed and supported by jakarta projects - for experimental code you
didn't added any change ).
> > and I have a problem with arguing that
> > a project that wants to release a stand-alone component out of
> > sandbox needs to get the aproval of commons.
>
> If the code were accepted into the Commons it would be moved to the
> Commons CVS. The guideline is the same for everyone.
And if a project would want to continue to develop the code in the common
workspace it'll not be able to distribute it standalone, and imply that
any component should be under the control of commons.
I'm sorry, but I don't think this was part of the proposal or is a correct
interpretation of the proposal I voted on ( since it had the explicit
mention that project can sponsor a component ). It may be valid in the
modified proposal - where "they can develop the component but must release
it as part of the project release " - but that's not what was agreed on.
It's scary that a proposal can be "edited" or "clarified" in such a
significant way after it was finalized and without a vote.
Costin
Re: Agora and the Shared CVS
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
> > A component that is built by a project as part of the sandbox/agora isn't
> > supposed to be released to the public - because of quality concerns. Yet a
> > component that is accepted by commons commiters can be released, even if
> > it has a smaller set of commiters and less review.
>
> Code or documentation cannot be released to the public directly from the
> shared CVS for *legal* concerns regarding use of the Apache brand. All
> anyone has asked is that one of subprojects using this code release it
> with their own codebase. And that is all the clarified #20 says.
Can you explain a bit more - what are the legal concerns ? Most of
us are programmers, and I just can't get it - how the same piece of code
is "legal" if it is distributed as part of a jakarta project, but it is
ilegal if it is distributed standalone.
Does that mean that if tomcat is using a threadpool component it can't
release an upgrade of only the thread pool ? But it become legal if the
same package is distributed out of commons ?
And how is Apache brand protected by releasing code under a project where
most voter don't know what they vote on ( since they were not involved in
the development ), but it's not protected if the code is
released by a vote of the people who support and test it ?
Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is this
based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
> "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
> Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
> subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
> rest of their codebase."
>
> Again, this not just about Agora. We need to write this to apply to
> everyone who might also want to use the shared CVS to promote a new
> development model. Or work on any type of cross-product material,
> whether for submission to the Commons or not.
Again - I don't understand. "Agora" is when a jakarta project is
developing the code in the common repository and is taking responsibility
for it ( with other jakarta projects maybe ).
Other development models ( like experimental code, etc ) is not sponsored
by a project - if there is a project that supports and maintain the code
we are in Agora case. So how adding a restriction on Agora ( the case
where the code is developed by a project in common ) will affect the
case of "experimental" or "everyone" case.
> The shared CVS in the Commons is not meant to be Agora. We have tried to
> add language so it could be used like Agora, along with other things. At
> the time, the operative phrase was "close enough".
And now you basically change the language that was "close enough", with a
change that affects only Agora anyway.
( the clarification doesn't affect anything else - only the code that is
developed and supported by jakarta projects - for experimental code you
didn't added any change ).
> > and I have a problem with arguing that
> > a project that wants to release a stand-alone component out of
> > sandbox needs to get the aproval of commons.
>
> If the code were accepted into the Commons it would be moved to the
> Commons CVS. The guideline is the same for everyone.
And if a project would want to continue to develop the code in the common
workspace it'll not be able to distribute it standalone, and imply that
any component should be under the control of commons.
I'm sorry, but I don't think this was part of the proposal or is a correct
interpretation of the proposal I voted on ( since it had the explicit
mention that project can sponsor a component ). It may be valid in the
modified proposal - where "they can develop the component but must release
it as part of the project release " - but that's not what was agreed on.
It's scary that a proposal can be "edited" or "clarified" in such a
significant way after it was finalized and without a vote.
Costin