commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [all] Move Jelly to dormant/orphaned?
Date Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:58:46 GMT
On 9 January 2012 14:42, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the whole formality of project state should be replaced with a
> live activity widget like can be seen on other sites. Commit activity
> and such. If someone were thinking of contributing to a project, the
> incentive would be removed or seriously diminished by a dead/sleepy
> project state.

I think the activity widget could be counter-productive.

Component activity tends to go in phases; there may be several weeks
with no activity and then a flurry.
Also commits are only a small part of the health of a component.

Activity monitors can work well for frequently occuring activities,
but component health is much more complicated.

To take a simple example, try measuring committer productivity by SVN commits.
Some committers commit large chunks, some commit per file; and that
may vary for a committer.
Some commits are not "productive" - e.g. whitespace fixes, reverts of
a bad commit.
Some commits represent lots of investigation and skill, some may be
much simpler.

> Gary
>
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:59, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Jelly did not see any activity for nearly two years:
>> http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fjelly
>>
>> Last release was in 01.2010.
>>
>> We had already discussion on a process to move proper components into
>> another state, be it "dormant" or "inactive". I would like to
>> resurrect this discussion. We have had a lots of discussion in the
>> past: somebody wanted to progress with somehting, like graduating
>> graph or using Java 5 in a component and the response sometimes was we
>> have to less man power at Commons.
>>
>> Therefore I think we need to tell the people for which components they
>> can expect releases and for which ones not. Otherwise outsiders may
>> look at a huge bunch of components and see only little activity.
>> Wouldn't it be better instead to show only a handful components which
>> are actively developed?
>>
>> Looking at Jelly, it is orphaned. No releases, no releases to be
>> expected. I would like to move it to dormant or to a new transition
>> state, if people wish so, maybe called "orphaned" or "inactive" or
>> whatever.
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message