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: VOTE: IBM web console donation
Date Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:42:58 GMT

On Jul 17, 2005, at 2:46 PM, matt@hogstrom.org wrote:

> On the issue of the name I vote admin-console and not include the  
> donor's name
> (ala ibm-web-console).  Not sure of the policy.

I'd like to not persist donor names in our repo structure if the  
donor doesn't want it, and probably ever.  (For the uncurable pedants  
among us, yes, that's different from what I had illustrated in an  
example during our conversations...)

We should certainly mention it in the initial checkin, so it can be  
linked back to the contribution documentation in the Apache Incubator.

geir

>
> Matt
>
> On Sunday 17 July 2005 12:09, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Jul 17, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> and we can now place into our svn repository and get to work.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be happy to take the codebase in ASAP, and Aaron can tally the
>>>> vote/poll for "operating mode" and we can then resolve that in
>>>> parallel w/ beginning work.  How does that sound?
>>>>
>>>
>>>     Well, you've neatly dodged the question of where in SVN to place
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> Not a dodge - that was the second aspect of the vote thread and I
>> wanted to let you complete it.
>>
>>
>>> By my count, the poll has produced a tie (bearing in mind that a -1
>>> does not appear to be a veto on this issue):
>>>
>>> Add to geronimo/incubator/ibm-web-console; restricted committers
>>>     +1 Alan +1 Aaron +1 Dims +1 Jeff +1 John +1 Srinath +1 Geir -1
>>> Dain
>>> Add to geronimo/sandbox/web-console; patches not committers
>>>     +1 Aaron +1 Geir +1 Jacek +1 David B +1 Dain +1 David J
>>>
>>>     The other two options totaled 1, 1, and -1.  So I think it's  
>>> safe
>>> to say that this is the decision we need to make.  If we want
>>> something
>>> immediate, I recommend we put it in the sandbox with no additional
>>> commit
>>> access, and then if we ultimately decide to go the route of  
>>> restricted
>>> committers, we can svn move it out of the main trunk.
>>>
>>
>> Yes - please do that.  That is compatible with our policy of
>> accepting code, and no one was against accepting the code.  (This is
>> irrespective of the committer issues under discussion)
>>
>> We can then hopefully tie up the committer issue in parallel.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> geir
>>
>
>
>

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



Mime
View raw message