commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <>
Subject Re: Unnecessary etiquette rule
Date Thu, 19 May 2011 23:48:13 GMT
sebb wrote:

> On 19 May 2011 06:34, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
>> On 5/18/11 9:36 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> The following rule seems unnecessary to me:
>>> "each committer who commits to a component must add their name to the
>>> STATUS file" (or pom.xml)
>>> I've never done this, have touched every component (give or take a
>>> component or two) and have never had negative feedback*. Either
>>> everyone's being very polite or it's not actually a necessary piece of
>>> etiquette :)
>> Well, now that you mention it, your wanton pillaging has left a
>> trail of devastation and fear in the hearts of Commoners across the
>> realm  - he he.
>> Seriously, I think that as stated, the rule is obsolete; but the
>> spirit of it is good.  When that was originally written, components
>> were all independently built using Ant, sites were, lets just say
>> "diverse," mostly built using Anakia, and most of what people worked
>> on was actual code internal to the components.  So when you started
>> committing to a component, that meant you were going to really get
>> into its code and join the little subcommunity that was working on
>> it.  You signaled that by adding yourself to the STATUS file.
>> Partly because we have added complexity and inter-dependency to the
>> build and site generation processes, partly because people have
>> shown willingness and interest in doing these things, we now have a
>> decent incidence of people "touching" components without really
>> jumping in to the code that deeply.  I think that is a *good thing*
>> as it helps keep the code and sites in better shape.
>> I still think it is a good idea for us to keep something like a
>> STATUS file up to date indicating who the active committers are for
>> each component.  I am not sure, honestly, if the pom.xml team list
>> is the right place for this, though; as it is more
>> externally-facing, gets published as part of releases, etc.  The
>> current poms are also full of references to people who have not
>> contributed in quite a while.  The value of having a team list that
>> committers add themselves to and drop off of is that adding oneself
>> is a statement of real interest in the component and willingness to
>> help move it forward.  There are some old Wiki pages somewhere where
>> we started to track this kind of thing; but IMO the component's svn
>> is a better place.
>> So bottom line is I think the rule should stand with s/commits to a
>> component/makes a nontrivial change to a component/ and  s/STATUS
>> file (or pom.xml)/not sure, maybe stay with pom/
>> I also think we agree to take ourselves off of the lists when we are
>> no longer contributing or seriously thinking about it - similar to
>> the unwritten rule about taking yourself off a PMC.
> I think it's reasonable for developers to add their own name (if they
> wish) to the pom if they have made a non-trivial contribution to the
> component.
> The list of developers and contributors will of course grow over time.
> I see the pom as being a way of recognising developers and
> contributors (rather than the deprecated @author tags) so it's
> important that the list is historic, not just current.
> If we really need to record who is currently working on a component
> (generally that's obvious from SVN commits and the dev list), then I
> agree that a STATUS file or similar would be better than the Wiki. But
> I'm not sure it's essential.
> How do names get removed when they are no longer active?

A committer is a committer, but we can utilize the role element on the Maven 

- Jörg

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message