geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Genender" <jgenen...@savoirtech.com>
Subject RE: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help))
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:52:15 GMT
1) -1.  Guidelines are good, policy can be bad.

2a) IMHO...This will be hard to guage and form metrics.  This is
subjective...since I think quality of participation plays to a certain
degree.  Is this necessary?  Can't we continue as we have (or has this
proven to be negative)?

2b) +1 for "bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people"
because obviously it needs to be worked on by the authors to a certain
degree.

Jeff 

-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geirm@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:42 PM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin
Console- request for help))

Lets start a new thread tomorrow, finish discussion since I suspect that all
that will say their peace have done so, and work out a vote?

I suspect we need to decide :

1) do we need to have any policy?

2) If so, decide the

   a) general committer acceptance policy/guidelines to define some
      sensible, fair, transparent metrics for accepting a committer
      such as
       - how long a person must commit patches
       - how long participate on the mailing lists

   b) general code acceptance policy (what we have been discussing here)
      where the options include
       - bring into SVN, grant committer status to some # of people
       - bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people
       - bring into SVN, follow a) above for people
       - none of the above

I think that "bring to incubator" is not in scope for this vote, as it's a
tool we already have now - we can always do that and decide to sponsor or
just participate, but at the end of that process, then the code contribution
b) rules should apply.

geir


On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

>     Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan doesn't 
> like that, so...
>
>     Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for 
> donated code are:
>
> 1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some 
> number of people) who have worked with the code before
>
> 2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area, 
> grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to some 
> number of people who have worked with the code before
>
> 3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and 
> potentially Geronimo people to form a new project team
>
>     It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of these 
> is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web 
> console vs the ORB.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>> It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you 
>>> guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't know yet, myself.  But certainly one cannot deny there are 
>> more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not 
>> exactly the same deal as a web console.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>> On 7/12/05, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both 
>>>>> cases, seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that really true?  We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't 
>>>> we?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org




Mime
View raw message