geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Donations & Policies
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:23:29 GMT

On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:13 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

>     Okay, it seems I was was under the mistaken impression that
> everyone on the CORBA call wanted the TriFork code to come to a  
> Geronimo
> "sandbox area", whereas in fact some people want it to go to the
> incubator.  I think that's totally acceptable, and I'm sorry I  
> didn't walk
> away from the call with a clear picture of what people want.

Yes, I had the same mis-impression given that everyone said "yes"  
when we clarified it :)

It would good to see a show of hands of who actually wanted what,  
including the TriFork contributors.

I'll start - I was under the impression that the TriFork CORBA  
donation would come to the Geronimo project directly and we'd put the  
code out of the main tree and invite the TriFork people to work on it  
there with us, integrating it tightly at first into Geronimo, leaving  
the door open to making a standalone server or TLP later.


>
>     After giving the whole issue some more thought, I think I would
> prefer the TriFork code go to the incubator.  I'm fine going either  
> way
> with the web console (incubator or "sandbox area" with own ACL).  I  
> guess
> that means that if we need a single policy/guideline, I'd lean  
> toward the
> incubator.
>
>     Part of the thinking that went into this was I considered the
> possible donation of an EJB container, web container, JMS broker, etc.
> All of those are pieces of every J2EE servers, and we've seen at  
> least one
> J2EE vendor willing to make donations.  I don't really think it  
> would be
> appropriate to bring one of those components I just listed directly  
> into a
> Geronimo sandbox.  We are already using high-quality open source  
> projects
> in each of those areas, and they're good at what they do, and I  
> don't want
> to insult them or ourselves be on the hook to support and maintain  
> those
> features.
>
>     There are other smaller components we might accept into Geronimo
> without conflicting, but I don't think we should base our
> policy/guidelines on those.

I think we should have a general policy no matter what the code is.   
If a contributor bring something like a EJB container, we can always  
choose to simply vote no - that we don't want it in Geronimo for  
whatever reason, be it not wanting to insult another project, or not  
wanting to be on the hook for support...

But please,  lets create a clear policy independent of who the donor  
is or what they are donating, and do it now.

geir

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



Mime
View raw message