You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com> on 2009/04/13 19:38:38 UTC
Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Received 3 declarations of intent to -1 (vote not in progress yet) from IPMC members so perhaps it's time to step back and talk about requirements since the proposed solution seems to sit unfavorably with several people on this list. Further commentary below:
--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> From: Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com>
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 9:49 PM
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com>
> 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 PMC wants to import code, then it can file
> IP clearances.
> > If it wants to incubate communities, then it needs to
> follow the rest
> > of the Incubator procedures.
>
> That said, we want to work with Apache Commons to address
> its valid issues.
> But the proposal appears to be a false step.
Fair enough.
another Noel quote:
> Keep in mind that Committers in the Incubator are not provisional.
> The projects are, but not the people. We can definitely talk about
> incubating a project before it moves into Apache Commons, especially
> larger ones.
You say that podling committers are not provisional; I'll turn that around and reword that as "a committer to a TLP is not 'more real' a committer than a person who only has commit access to a podling/s. But in the rare event that the IPMC declares a given incubation "failed" what happens to those committers? They're still real committers; they just happen not to have access to commit to anything? "I'm an ASF committer." "Really? What project do you work on?" "Oh, I don't have access to commit to any projects; I just AM a committer." :P That little bit of strangeness aside, I'll try to boil down the situation:
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 a minimal community PROVIDED that there is a total of at least three guardians (to play on the orphan concept) including the podling committers (becoming full Commons committers, with all that implies) in addition to existing Commons committers who explicitly declare themselves interested and available to support the graduating component.
The other issue we had is that it seems a waste of resources to go through the infra side of incubation for such small components, but that's not much skin off our proverbial nose in any case...
Can the IPMC agree on a solution to address our issue(s)?
Thanks,
Matt
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> <jo...@gmail.com> 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 integrated into Commons, thus must likely
>> will never be) are clearly implying this danger. That's not about
>> external committers. It is about too many committers.
>
> Ah! I sure can relate to this, but isn't this a different issue altogether?
It possibly is, if my understanding of a "Commons Incubator" being
related to the Commons project is wrong.
> And in what sense would a "permanent commons incubation project" help with this?
It wouldn't. I am opposing such a project.
Jochen
--
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out
how to use my telephone.
-- (Bjarne Stroustrup,
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#really-say-that
My guess: Nokia E50)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jo...@gmail.com> 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 integrated into Commons, thus must likely
> will never be) are clearly implying this danger. That's not about
> external committers. It is about too many committers.
Ah! I sure can relate to this, but isn't this a different issue altogether?
And in what sense would a "permanent commons incubation project" help with this?
>> I am still of the opinion that it can be handled within Commons, with
>> IP Clearance registrations at the Incubator.
>
> Disagreed. Assuming that the Incubator changes its policy to have
> projects exiting without community: Why can't another project be the
> target (depending on the projects topic, of course). Why should this
> be so special to Commons?
I hope I have never singled out Commons. Apache Felix is accepting
some relatively small codebases every now and then, via the
IP-clearance process and 'internal committer training' if you like
such term. The result is mixed, some people come in and continue to
work on the code, some don't but IMHO there has not been any harm.
Active committers are on the PMC, the inactive or AWOL ones are not.
And Felix typically don't bother with a 'special area' and instead
embrace the codebase and try to assist as much as possible to bring it
up to ASF standards.
I am pretty sure this happens elsewhere (I don't hang around that many
projects), and IMHO a good thing, which I would like to see happen in
Commons as well. And the Commons PMC should be very conscious about
what makes sense, feels right and can be supported.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> 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 my concern.
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 integrated into Commons, thus must likely
will never be) are clearly implying this danger. That's not about
external committers. It is about too many committers.
> I am still of the opinion that it can be handled within Commons, with
> IP Clearance registrations at the Incubator.
Disagreed. Assuming that the Incubator changes its policy to have
projects exiting without community: Why can't another project be the
target (depending on the projects topic, of course). Why should this
be so special to Commons?
Jochen
--
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out
how to use my telephone.
-- (Bjarne Stroustrup,
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#really-say-that
My guess: Nokia E50)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com> 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 a minimal community PROVIDED that there is a total of at least three guardians (to play on the orphan concept) including the podling committers (becoming full Commons committers, with all that implies) in addition to existing Commons committers who explicitly declare themselves interested and available to support the graduating component.
IMVHO, nothing is changing.
There seems to be some concern in Commons that committers are a threat
to the existing codebase. My answer is; No, that is a hostile attitude
towards decent people. If a component never leaves the sandbox, or the
'maintainer' goes AWOL before it gets enough momentum or whatever, it
doesn't matter that the individual still have commit access. He/She
won't use it. It is no different than some other committer goes AWOL.
Now, in the very unlikely event that the committer makes malicious
attempt at sabotage, THEN bring up the issue and expel him/her from
ASF.
And the "I am committer at ASF" argument is completely loosing its
meaning. Soon half of the 'thinking' Java world are committers here.
And IFF it positively affects some individual who didn't 'earned' it,
So what? Does it affect us? Not a bit.
I am still of the opinion that it can be handled within Commons, with
IP Clearance registrations at the Incubator.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org