geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:56:27 GMT
Let me clarify.  I think we have two very different code bases here.   
The ORB is top-levelable and console is not.  By top-levelable I mean  
that it is a big standalone code base and can reasonably become a  
standalone project.  This is also supported by the fact that most ORB  
projects in open source are standalone projects and there are many  
commercial standalone ORBs.  The console is neither.  Since these are  
very different code bases, I think they need to be addressed  

We bring the code directly into the geronimo/trunk/sandbox.  We work  
on the code there, and any people that worked on the code before the  
donation, contribute via patches.  Once the code is ready, we move  
the code to /geronimo/trunk/applications.

We bring the code and programmers into the Apache Incubator as a  
subproject supported by and destined for Geronimo.  We develop the  
initial code an community in incubator, and then bring it into the  
Geronimo project with a separate SVN location.  Once the project  
develops a good community of it's own we move the project to a top  
level project (this could take several years).

Note:  I perceive both of these code bases as special cases and not  
precedents.  The console is specific to Geronimo and really doesn't  
work without it, so it belongs in Geronimo.  The ORB supports a large  
specification without a (healthy) existing Apache licensed open  
source version.  If there were an existing apache licensed open  
source ORB, I would rather see the code donated and worked into an  
exiting project.  Alternatively, the group donating the code could  
start a new project outside Apache, and develop a healthy community  
of it's own.  I do not think that Geronimo should ever assist in  
undermining an existing (healthy) open source project.


On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> Note I wrote "I believe".  Based on conversations I've had and from
>> what I have seen on this list, *I believe* that this code will
>> ultimately end up in a subproject.
>     I guess I'm still not clear on "subproject".  You mean like with
> its own home page at "" and  
> separate JIRA
> and all?  Or it uses all the same infrastructure as Geronimo but has a
> separate /trunk somewhere in SVN?
>> What are you talking about?  We are in a thread to discuss the
>> specific donation of the IBM console, not a thread to decide a policy
>> on general code donation and committers.  If you would like to
>> discuss those, please start a new thread and address it directly.
>     For my part, I'm just as happy to try to set a precendent and
> handle the TriFork and IBM donations the same way to start with --  
> in a
> separate SVN area in within the Geronimo SVN repo, either each with  
> own
> ACL or sharing the Geronimo ACL and contributor employees  
> contribute via
> patches.  Whether they go on to become "subprojects" or "modules" or
> whatever can be decided later, right?
> Aaron

View raw message