You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> on 2007/02/25 02:36:49 UTC
EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, rfeng@apache.org wrote:
> Author: rfeng
> Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
> New Revision: 511225
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
> Log:
> [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
-1
There has been no discussion at all about this contribution in the
community. We've had someone from a vendor attach code in JIRA, a co-
worker say they would review and "possibly check it into a sandbox"
and then this commit to a branch only the vendor's employees are
working on. Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
development, it's a code dump.
Please take this out of SVN and talk to the community about it - you
might find people are interested in it.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
To strictly follow the process, I have removed the code from my sandbox too.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <jb...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
> Thanks Raymond.
>
> Strictly the code should not be in SVN until it has been cleared legally
> and part of that would be to deal with issues like the copyright here:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/rfeng/
> ejb/binding/pom.xml
>
> First step of the legal side is to have receipt acknowledged by an
> authorized member of the ASF which could be any of our mentors or the
> IPMC Chair. This ack would be reflected in the ip-clearance page. Then we
> can vote to accept the contribution (lazy consensus by the IPMC being
> enough but they do need to be notified).
>
> There are more details on the process here:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>
> I have questions about what we are going to do with this but I'll leave
> those for your other thread.
> --
> Jeremy
>
> On Feb 25, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion as I'm new to this situation. I meant to get the
>> code into SVN as a base for discussion. I chose the paticular branch
>> simply because I only need minor effort to get the code built.
>>
>> I moved the code to my sandbox for now (http://svn.apache.org/repos/
>> asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/rfeng/ejb) and removed it from the branch.
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511566
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511567
>>
>> I'll start another thread to discuss if and/or how we can accept the
>> contribution.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
>> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Cc: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
>>
>>
>>> On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, rfeng@apache.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Author: rfeng
>>>> > Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
>>>> > New Revision: 511225
>>>> >
>>>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
>>>> > Log:
>>>> > [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
>>>>
>>>> -1
>>>>
>>>> There has been no discussion at all about this contribution in the
>>>> community. We've had someone from a vendor attach code in JIRA, a co-
>>>> worker say they would review and "possibly check it into a sandbox"
>>>> and then this commit to a branch only the vendor's employees are
>>>> working on. Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
>>>> development, it's a code dump.
>>>>
>>>> Please take this out of SVN and talk to the community about it - you
>>>> might find people are interested in it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Could one of our mentors/IPMCers comment on if this -1 comes with
>>> enough of
>>> a technical reason to make it a veto? If thats the case you need to
>>> revert
>>> the commit now before anymore discussion Raymond.
>>>
>>> Hopefully there will be discussion and development of the ejb binding
>>> on the
>>> ML in future, but the way its been done I don't think warrants it being
>>> removed right now. As I understand it there has been a CCLA received by
>>> Apache for the code. In the past there's been a lot of similar sized
>>> function committed to Tuscany trunk with no discussion until
>>> afterwards, and
>>> this code didn't get put in the trunk. More discussion would be better
>>> but I
>>> think one reason people do it this way may be as its easier to talk
>>> about
>>> things once there is actual code in SVN to refer to and try out. The
>>> commit
>>> was done late on Friday probably they're off for the weekend now, so
>>> how
>>> about waiting to see if they start discussions about this contribution
>>> on
>>> Monday.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>> PS, Rashmi, this looks really good to me and nicely written, i think it
>>> would be a great addition to Tuscany. Hope you don't get put off by
>>> this
>>> procedural debate and and can stick around to help develop Tuscany
>>> further.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Thanks Raymond.
Strictly the code should not be in SVN until it has been cleared
legally and part of that would be to deal with issues like the
copyright here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/rfeng/
ejb/binding/pom.xml
First step of the legal side is to have receipt acknowledged by an
authorized member of the ASF which could be any of our mentors or the
IPMC Chair. This ack would be reflected in the ip-clearance page.
Then we can vote to accept the contribution (lazy consensus by the
IPMC being enough but they do need to be notified).
There are more details on the process here:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
I have questions about what we are going to do with this but I'll
leave those for your other thread.
--
Jeremy
On Feb 25, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the confusion as I'm new to this situation. I meant to
> get the code into SVN as a base for discussion. I chose the
> paticular branch simply because I only need minor effort to get the
> code built.
>
> I moved the code to my sandbox for now (http://svn.apache.org/repos/
> asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/rfeng/ejb) and removed it from the
> branch.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511566
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511567
>
> I'll start another thread to discuss if and/or how we can accept
> the contribution.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Cc: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:39 AM
> Subject: Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
>
>
>> On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, rfeng@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>> > Author: rfeng
>>> > Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
>>> > New Revision: 511225
>>> >
>>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
>>> > Log:
>>> > [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> There has been no discussion at all about this contribution in the
>>> community. We've had someone from a vendor attach code in JIRA, a
>>> co-
>>> worker say they would review and "possibly check it into a sandbox"
>>> and then this commit to a branch only the vendor's employees are
>>> working on. Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't
>>> community
>>> development, it's a code dump.
>>>
>>> Please take this out of SVN and talk to the community about it - you
>>> might find people are interested in it.
>>
>>
>> Could one of our mentors/IPMCers comment on if this -1 comes with
>> enough of
>> a technical reason to make it a veto? If thats the case you need
>> to revert
>> the commit now before anymore discussion Raymond.
>>
>> Hopefully there will be discussion and development of the ejb
>> binding on the
>> ML in future, but the way its been done I don't think warrants it
>> being
>> removed right now. As I understand it there has been a CCLA
>> received by
>> Apache for the code. In the past there's been a lot of similar sized
>> function committed to Tuscany trunk with no discussion until
>> afterwards, and
>> this code didn't get put in the trunk. More discussion would be
>> better but I
>> think one reason people do it this way may be as its easier to
>> talk about
>> things once there is actual code in SVN to refer to and try out.
>> The commit
>> was done late on Friday probably they're off for the weekend now,
>> so how
>> about waiting to see if they start discussions about this
>> contribution on
>> Monday.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> PS, Rashmi, this looks really good to me and nicely written, i
>> think it
>> would be a great addition to Tuscany. Hope you don't get put off
>> by this
>> procedural debate and and can stick around to help develop Tuscany
>> further.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Sorry for the confusion as I'm new to this situation. I meant to get the
code into SVN as a base for discussion. I chose the paticular branch simply
because I only need minor effort to get the code built.
I moved the code to my sandbox for now
(http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/rfeng/ejb) and
removed it from the branch.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511566
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511567
I'll start another thread to discuss if and/or how we can accept the
contribution.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
> On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, rfeng@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> > Author: rfeng
>> > Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
>> > New Revision: 511225
>> >
>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
>> > Log:
>> > [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
>>
>> -1
>>
>> There has been no discussion at all about this contribution in the
>> community. We've had someone from a vendor attach code in JIRA, a co-
>> worker say they would review and "possibly check it into a sandbox"
>> and then this commit to a branch only the vendor's employees are
>> working on. Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
>> development, it's a code dump.
>>
>> Please take this out of SVN and talk to the community about it - you
>> might find people are interested in it.
>
>
> Could one of our mentors/IPMCers comment on if this -1 comes with enough
> of
> a technical reason to make it a veto? If thats the case you need to revert
> the commit now before anymore discussion Raymond.
>
> Hopefully there will be discussion and development of the ejb binding on
> the
> ML in future, but the way its been done I don't think warrants it being
> removed right now. As I understand it there has been a CCLA received by
> Apache for the code. In the past there's been a lot of similar sized
> function committed to Tuscany trunk with no discussion until afterwards,
> and
> this code didn't get put in the trunk. More discussion would be better but
> I
> think one reason people do it this way may be as its easier to talk about
> things once there is actual code in SVN to refer to and try out. The
> commit
> was done late on Friday probably they're off for the weekend now, so how
> about waiting to see if they start discussions about this contribution on
> Monday.
>
> ...ant
>
> PS, Rashmi, this looks really good to me and nicely written, i think it
> would be a great addition to Tuscany. Hope you don't get put off by this
> procedural debate and and can stick around to help develop Tuscany
> further.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Sorry for the confusion as I'm new to this situation. I meant to get the
code into SVN as a base for discussion. I chose the paticular branch simply
because I only need minor effort to get the code built.
I moved the code to my sandbox for now
(http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/rfeng/ejb) and
removed it from the branch.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511566
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511567
I'll start another thread to discuss if and/or how we can accept the
contribution.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
> On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, rfeng@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> > Author: rfeng
>> > Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
>> > New Revision: 511225
>> >
>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
>> > Log:
>> > [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
>>
>> -1
>>
>> There has been no discussion at all about this contribution in the
>> community. We've had someone from a vendor attach code in JIRA, a co-
>> worker say they would review and "possibly check it into a sandbox"
>> and then this commit to a branch only the vendor's employees are
>> working on. Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
>> development, it's a code dump.
>>
>> Please take this out of SVN and talk to the community about it - you
>> might find people are interested in it.
>
>
> Could one of our mentors/IPMCers comment on if this -1 comes with enough
> of
> a technical reason to make it a veto? If thats the case you need to revert
> the commit now before anymore discussion Raymond.
>
> Hopefully there will be discussion and development of the ejb binding on
> the
> ML in future, but the way its been done I don't think warrants it being
> removed right now. As I understand it there has been a CCLA received by
> Apache for the code. In the past there's been a lot of similar sized
> function committed to Tuscany trunk with no discussion until afterwards,
> and
> this code didn't get put in the trunk. More discussion would be better but
> I
> think one reason people do it this way may be as its easier to talk about
> things once there is actual code in SVN to refer to and try out. The
> commit
> was done late on Friday probably they're off for the weekend now, so how
> about waiting to see if they start discussions about this contribution on
> Monday.
>
> ...ant
>
> PS, Rashmi, this looks really good to me and nicely written, i think it
> would be a great addition to Tuscany. Hope you don't get put off by this
> procedural debate and and can stick around to help develop Tuscany
> further.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, rfeng@apache.org wrote:
>
> > Author: rfeng
> > Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
> > New Revision: 511225
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
> > Log:
> > [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
>
> -1
>
> There has been no discussion at all about this contribution in the
> community. We've had someone from a vendor attach code in JIRA, a co-
> worker say they would review and "possibly check it into a sandbox"
> and then this commit to a branch only the vendor's employees are
> working on. Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
> development, it's a code dump.
>
> Please take this out of SVN and talk to the community about it - you
> might find people are interested in it.
Could one of our mentors/IPMCers comment on if this -1 comes with enough of
a technical reason to make it a veto? If thats the case you need to revert
the commit now before anymore discussion Raymond.
Hopefully there will be discussion and development of the ejb binding on the
ML in future, but the way its been done I don't think warrants it being
removed right now. As I understand it there has been a CCLA received by
Apache for the code. In the past there's been a lot of similar sized
function committed to Tuscany trunk with no discussion until afterwards, and
this code didn't get put in the trunk. More discussion would be better but I
think one reason people do it this way may be as its easier to talk about
things once there is actual code in SVN to refer to and try out. The commit
was done late on Friday probably they're off for the weekend now, so how
about waiting to see if they start discussions about this contribution on
Monday.
...ant
PS, Rashmi, this looks really good to me and nicely written, i think it
would be a great addition to Tuscany. Hope you don't get put off by this
procedural debate and and can stick around to help develop Tuscany further.
Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 25 February 2007 09:36, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, rfeng@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: rfeng
> > Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
> > New Revision: 511225
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
> > Log:
> > [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
>
> -1
>
> Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
> development, it's a code dump.
If this is the case, then I support this veto, even though I have no say in
the WS project. Tuscany developers should know better by now, and the WS PMC
needs to step up and put the foot firmly on the ground.
IMHO, the background to this is important on what happens next. If it is
obvious that this has been developed in "closed fashion" for Tuscany, then I
think it should be outright refused as a 'teaching lesson' not to do that
again.
If it came into existence independently of Tuscany, then standard Incubator IP
Clearance process should be applied.
Cheers
Niclas Hedhman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 25 February 2007 09:36, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, rfeng@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: rfeng
> > Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
> > New Revision: 511225
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
> > Log:
> > [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
>
> -1
>
> Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
> development, it's a code dump.
If this is the case, then I support this veto, even though I have no say in
the WS project. Tuscany developers should know better by now, and the WS PMC
needs to step up and put the foot firmly on the ground.
IMHO, the background to this is important on what happens next. If it is
obvious that this has been developed in "closed fashion" for Tuscany, then I
think it should be outright refused as a 'teaching lesson' not to do that
again.
If it came into existence independently of Tuscany, then standard Incubator IP
Clearance process should be applied.
Cheers
Niclas Hedhman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, rfeng@apache.org wrote:
>
> > Author: rfeng
> > Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
> > New Revision: 511225
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
> > Log:
> > [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
>
> -1
>
> There has been no discussion at all about this contribution in the
> community. We've had someone from a vendor attach code in JIRA, a co-
> worker say they would review and "possibly check it into a sandbox"
> and then this commit to a branch only the vendor's employees are
> working on. Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
> development, it's a code dump.
>
> Please take this out of SVN and talk to the community about it - you
> might find people are interested in it.
Could one of our mentors/IPMCers comment on if this -1 comes with enough of
a technical reason to make it a veto? If thats the case you need to revert
the commit now before anymore discussion Raymond.
Hopefully there will be discussion and development of the ejb binding on the
ML in future, but the way its been done I don't think warrants it being
removed right now. As I understand it there has been a CCLA received by
Apache for the code. In the past there's been a lot of similar sized
function committed to Tuscany trunk with no discussion until afterwards, and
this code didn't get put in the trunk. More discussion would be better but I
think one reason people do it this way may be as its easier to talk about
things once there is actual code in SVN to refer to and try out. The commit
was done late on Friday probably they're off for the weekend now, so how
about waiting to see if they start discussions about this contribution on
Monday.
...ant
PS, Rashmi, this looks really good to me and nicely written, i think it
would be a great addition to Tuscany. Hope you don't get put off by this
procedural debate and and can stick around to help develop Tuscany further.