commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:03:19 GMT
On 2/1/02 5:49 PM, "Scott Sanders" <ssanders@nextance.com> wrote:


[SNIP]

Scott : 

>>>>>>> But, then again, why not just create top-level projects
>>>> whose clear
>>>>>>> goal is to do 'x'?

Geir :

>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Too many of them.  Hard to manage, hard to present...
>>>>> 

Scott :

>>>>> Already there, IMHO.  At least if we added hundreds more,
>>>> the problem
>>>>> would *HAVE* to be solved.
>>>> 

Geir :

>>>> Yes, like maybe having a project that is a container for
>> the smaller 
>>>> components?
>>>>  
>>>> ;)
>>> 
>>> With another PMC and everything? :)  How many levels of
>> abstraction do 
>>> we need to code?  We need the ASF and the ASF Board to
>> protect us from 
>>> a corporate perspective, and then there should be the coders.  That
>>> should be it.
>> 
>> Or create a "Commons" project in Jakarta where components had
>> a home....
> 
> We've got that...

Yes - that's my point.  We will wind up back here anyway, so lets no push
everything up into Jakarta-land.

> 
>> 
>>  
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Both of which you would get with the common model - everyone has
>>>>>> rights in the sandbox (it's one singular CVS) and they are
>>>> still as
>>>>>> diverse a community as they are now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> OK.  It's whole agree, but disagree thing.  I agree with
>> you, but I 
>>>>> also think that some sort of commit status deprecation
>>>> needs to take
>>>>> place, in order to truly make this type of community work.
>>>> 
>>>> Deprecate what?  Here's one approach :
>>> 
>>> Committer status to inactive committers.
>> 
>> Oh.  That's easy, isn't it?
> 
> Is it?

Yep - just based on time...

> 
>> 

[SNIP]

>>> 
>>> As Costin said, anything is possible, but probable is a different
>>> thing.
>> 
>> So you believe that all people share the same point of view
>> when it comes to format, writing style, POV and such for
>> javadoc?  These are the same people that can't agree where
>> the curly bracket should be placed on an if() block?
> 
> No, but that's why we do have some rules, IMHO.

Hm  But the developers of any component is free to do whatever they want.
Right?  Push decisions down?  So therefore, you can't assume you know what
that component community wants just because it's in commons, no more than
you can at the Jakarta project level...


[SNIP]

>> 
>> Of course!  Has there been any suggestion from me other than
>> just tightening up component committer status from 'add to a
>> file' to 'merit-based community decision'?
> 
> I was just wondering how much of the Jakarta structure you wanted to
> take: cvs privleges, PMC, mailing lists, etc...
> 

One mailing list.  We have it.

CVS privs - yep - that¹s what I was looking form

PMC - no need - the community is currently small enough to self regulate -
our only responsibility to the community as a whole is ensuring that the
components we add are what we want to see in there.  Everything else can be
deferred to the Jakarta PMC if need be.


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr.                                     geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
"We will be judged not by the monuments we build, but by the monuments we
destroy" - Ada Louise Huxtable


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message