felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Implementation of unreleased spec and community
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:22:03 GMT
It seems either I have a hard time explaining myself, or you're all blind.
I'll suppose the first one, so I'll try again.

Let's say someone comes to aries or felix saying: "i'd like to work on a RI
for the xxx rfc".  At this point, that's fine if the RFC is kinda frozen.
Let's imagine it's not, and the api package is changed to play a bit with
latest EEG phone calls.  Only OSGi Alliance members can freely modify the
API packages to reflect those changes.  Worse, someone can make a change in
the API to be latter approved by the OSGi Alliance.

There's clearly a difference between apache committers who are OSGi members
and those that are not.  Some of them can make changes, others don't.
It looks like a problem to me.

Another concrete example is if someone comes to one ASF project saying:
"I'd like to contribute this implementation of the RFC.  Btw, the RFC
document does not yet reflect the changes in the RI, but it will soon".


2017-01-18 15:15 GMT+01:00 Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org>:

> Guillaume Nodet wrote
> >
> >> There is no difference? Really? Claiming the current approach is not
> >> optimal from a community perspective is certainly not unreasonable, but
> >> saying that the community doesn't benefit at all from having draft
> >> implementations being worked on at Apache seems like a stretch.
> >
> >
> > Can you outline the benefits then ? Honestly, I don't see the difference
> > between such an implementation being developed at Apache and the same one
> > being developed under the same license at github.  At github, I can also
> > fork, provide PR, raise issues, etc...
> >
> Why is github the alternative to Apache? If my work is not valued by the
> Felix community I have no incentive to do it at github. It would rather
> be company internal or maybe at the Eclipse foundation.
> >
> >
> > Shaping future evolution is definitely a privilege of OSGi Alliance
> members
> > and again, I have no problem with that part.  The problem is not whether
> > OSGi members have more information or not, it's whether non OSGi members
> > have enough information or not to implement a spec.  When the
> > implementation is used as a play ground for the spec design, that's
> > definitely not true.
> >
> I've written some of the implementations of the current RFCs and believe me
> the RFC document is all you need. And if not, there are the mentioned
> channels
> to ask for clarifications.
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Adobe Research Switzerland
> cziegeler@apache.org

Guillaume Nodet
Red Hat, Open Source Integration

Email: gnodet@redhat.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message