geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:34:19 GMT
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/11/2005 8:03 AM:

>>1) We must decide on where we bring the software and how we handle  
>>interested contributors :
>>   a) Bring to Apache Geronimo SVN (w/ or w/o separate ACL) and
>>       i) Grant committer status to any offered individuals that wish  
>>to continue working on the respective contribution
>>       ii) Ask that work continues via submitted patches for some  
>>period of time
>>   b) Bring to the Apache Incubator and work with the code and people  
>	I would like to look at the code before deciding whether and how
>to incorporate either of these donations into Geronimo "for real".  But my 
>preference on the implementation of that would be to set up some temporary 
>space in the project SVN, put the code there, let people fuss with it, and 
>then (if all goes well) when it's massaged into shape vote to fold it into 
>the SVN tree proper (though I'm not yet sure whether it should be part of 
>the current "geronimo" tree or in a "related projects" / "sub project" 
>area -- that probably depends to some extent on the code and how 
>entangled it is).
>	So, in order to move forward, I would prefer:
> - set up a separate area of SVN for donations (currently 2 on the table)
> - pick one of:
>   - add separate ACL for each donation in there
>   - have people from contributing company operate via patches
>	I would personally lean slightly toward patches, though I 
>anticipate the donators may prefer ACLs.  In any case, if and when the 
>code becomes part of Geronimo proper, I think the donators will need to 
>qualify for Geronimo commit status as normal.
>	Aaron

I think that we should have a single simple process.  All code donations 
go into


The contributors would get restricted committer access to their project; 
granting committer access gives us better visibility how well the person 
works in a community setting.  They and, hopefully Geronimo committers, 
would whip it into shape.  The community would provide guidance and, 
hopefully, vote it into Geronimo once its provenance has been cleared. 

The "probationary" committers would, hopefully, get voted into Geronimo, 
regardless of their projects status.  I have never heard of a motivated 
developer not getting committer access.

I think that if the contribution was wildy popular it would graduate, as 
would any Geronimo module, to be a sub-project where it would have its 
own release cycles.


View raw message