deltacloud-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Dietisheim <>
Subject Re: jboss tools deltacloud java client contributions
Date Tue, 24 May 2011 07:08:16 GMT
Hi David, Hi Francesco, Hi all

thanks for the quick answers :) Dont worry, I'm pretty much used (I'm 
already committer and willing to fullfill all requirements 
to move the code to ASF. I'll have to check with my project lead about 
specific issues though (renaming), but I guess it shouldn't be an issue. 
See my comments inline:

On 05/23/2011 11:56 PM, David Lutterkort wrote:
>        * Could we rename the package to
>          org.apache.deltacloud ? (Or should we make that
>          org.deltacloud ?)

I have no issue with that, but I'll have to check with Max (JBoss Tools 
lead) about implications. Afaik org.apache.deltacloud would be the 
naming scheme used for java code @apache, right (at least this was used 
in apache clerezza which I was committing to)?

>        * Could we change the mentions of 'JBoss' either to 'Apache
>          Software Foundation' or leave them out entirely ? Instead, we'd
>          put a NOTICE file into clients/java/NOTICE, similar to [1]

I'm checking with Max about this.

>        * Would you be willing and able to act as the maintainer of the
>          Java client; in particular, would you make releases of the Java
>          client (ideally, we'd coordinate releases between server and the
>          clients, but there's nothing wrong if the Java client releases
>          more often than the server) The main thing I am looking for is
>          somebody who will build jars and help write release notes. Of
>          course, as the Java maintainer, we'd get you commit access.

I have basically not much time left to work on this code since I'm 
moving towards work on JBoss AS7 and Openshift tooling. I guess though 
that I would be perfectly able to do basic maintenance since I would 
also have to do that too. In other terms this basically means 
that I wont be able to implement new features. Is that ok for you guys? 
I was actually hoping that my client would have superior visibility 
@apache and chances to attract contributions/maintainers would improve.


View raw message