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: Donation of Admin Console- request for help
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:44:22 GMT

On Jul 11, 2005, at 8:13 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Jul 11, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 11, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  The console is neither.  Since these are very different code  
>>> bases, I think they need to be addressed differently:
>>>
>>> Console:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ORB:
>>> 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).
>>>
>>
>> These two solutions are not in conflict.
>>
>
> I hope I didn't implied they were.  I am simply trying to say that  
> they are totally separate situations.

Yes :

a) Code comes to Geronimo SVN, people working on that code that are  
not Geronimo committers contribute patches and participate in the  
community in a way we pre-define as our process.

b) Code goes to incubator.  We participate there.


>
>
>> The problem is that IIRC, the consensus for the ORB wasn't to do  
>> it in incubator, but bring the TriFork code and people here and  
>> close and involved directly in what we are doing.
>>
>
> Ah... what?  Just because the code lives in incubator doesn't mean  
> that we can't work closely with the trifork guys.  I think it is  
> clear that everyone wants to work with the trifork team closely.

Yep.  I never said that you can't, so please don't suggest I was  
saying that.

But it was my impression that both TriFork people and Geronimo  
people, including you, were interested in the code coming into a SVN  
repository under the supervision of the Geronimo PMV, with all those  
people working in that SVN.

>
>
>> I have no problem with what you say above, but we should treat all  
>> contributions the same way, and a contribution from the Incubator  
>> is the same as from outside, is it not?  Whatever process we  
>> require of individuals to get commit status is the same?
>>
>> I'm actually happy if your answers are "no" and "no" as long as we  
>> clearly define our process.
>>
>
> I guess you're not going to be happy.  I think that we have  
> different situations here.  My guess is every donation will be a  
> unique situation.  We need to measure the situation and act  
> accordingly.
>

I don't agree.  I think that having a simple set of rules is needed  
for transparency and fairness.  Of course, exceptions can be made,  
but that should be to a well-understood and supported policy.

>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Well, these are precedents to see how we bring code in (as more  
>> will be coming and yes, some of it will be very specific to  
>> Geronimo).  Hypothetically, if TriFork offered their EJB  
>> container, then it - how OpenEJB works notwithstanding - is not a  
>> standalone project because the EJB spec can't be implemented  
>> legally outside of the full container, is therefore Geronimo  
>> specific, and belongs in Geronimo.
>>
>
> I hope no one would do that.  That would be incredible damaging to  
> our community.  How would you feel if Trifork donated their web- 
> service implementation?  We could suck it into Geronimo and get  
> everyone using it.  Of course that would really hurt Axis.
>
> I think we avoid any situation that would undermine an existing  
> healthy open source community.  If someone wants to donate  
> something to compete against an existing healthy Apache licensed  
> open source community, we can simply suggest they work with the  
> existing community or start a new one.

I agree.  We should always encourage that.  But sometimes competition  
is good :)
>
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's fine, but I don't think the donators wish to go this way at  
>> first, and I think that we're happy to accommodate them.
>>
>
> What?  That was a hypothetical situation.   I wrote "If there were  
> an existing apache licensed open source ORB", but as I see it there  
> is not one, so we should a new project and community here.
>

No.  The CORBA donation is not hypothetical, and intended to come to  
the Geronimo project.  For what reason do you wish to make them go to  
the incubator?

geir

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



Mime
View raw message