geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
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 Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message