apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Travis <jtra...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Date Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:46:58 GMT
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 04:25:00PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:55:35PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
<Snip>
> > I've decided to host the project elsewhere.  It would be extremely 
> > frustrating to require you, the ASF, to review code I'm patching
> > to code I initially wrote, given that I know that code better than
> > anyone.  Moreover, I would have no review privileges for code being
> > committed to e-k, which seems like very irresponsible code management.
> 
> As Jeff indicated, we had hoped that you would want to work *with* us on
> moving E-K forward. Your participation on the APR development list,
> reviewing of commits, suggesting new directions, and providing patches to
> improve the system are/were quite welcome.
> 
> Your comment about "host the project elsewhere" is interesting. We never
> viewed this as a way for you to host code at the ASF. Instead, this was
> about two things:
> 
> 1) a donation of code from a company (Covalent)
> 2) providing an individual (Jon Travis) with commit access to apr-util

#1 is correct.  #2 is not -- rather it was about Jon Travis having 
maintainer privileges to wherever it ended up (not necessarily apr-util). 
I've repeatedly stated that moving stuff to a different project was fine.
Read over the emails -- it's all there in whatever colors your mail
reader renders it.. ;-)

> The two are separable items with different issues and requirements.
> 
> > As originally stated, I would be the initial maintainer of the code. 
> > Since this is not the case, it seems that the ASF has accepted part
> > of the deal, and discarded the rest.
> 
> Again, the two issues are separate. It is unfortunate that the ASF did not
> communicate this critical piece of information to you, though. A lot of
> headache may have been avoided if we simply said, "A code donation does not
> imply commit access. Each will be evaluated on their own merits."

That's fine -- but in this case I said that I would be the initial 
maintainer.  If you didn't want the one, you shouldn't have taken the 
other.

> > I'd ask that you not include e-k, since we haven't come to a satisfactory 
> > conclusion.
> 
> We have already executed the paperwork with Covalent for the software grant.

This I know -- I filled it all out.. ;-)

> I don't have a particular read on what the PMC is going to choose to do with
> the code -- whether it will go into apr-util/html/, or whether will be
> skipped. We do have the choice, but I'm not sure which will be chosen.
> 

You certainly do, and I hope you act responsibly in your decision.

-- Jon


Mime
View raw message