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: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help))
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:08:06 GMT

On Jul 12, 2005, at 10:58 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

>     Well, can we have a separate vote for what to do with the web
> console?  I thought it was ready (or nearly so) and I don't want to  
> hold
> up the contribution for some of the unrelated items on your list.

I was hoping that we could just define the guidelines first, and then  
apply it to the web console as our first use.

>
> (break)
>
>     As for your list, are you saying that a vote for new code going to
> the incubator must necessarily be cast as a "we don't need a  
> policy" vote
> for 1 (since "it's a tool we already have now - we can always do  
> that")?
> I don't think that's entirely reasonable.  A policy of sending  
> donations
> to the incubator is still a policy.  Whatever, I guess I'm OK voting
> against policy.

Ok - I see.  I think of it as something we have always had the  
ability to do, so it's not a decision on what we do *here*.  So if we  
choose to always send to the incubator, we haven't actually done  
anything, and leave open the question of what to do when it comes out  
of incubator :)

>
>     Also, I thought we were going to try to avoid votes on things that
> haven't been discussed.  Where did the metrics for accepting a  
> committer
> topic come from?

That's why I left it open and didn't call for a vote, and I thought  
posed them as suggestions - starters for a conversation.  I think we  
need a good rule of thumb "guideline" for potential committers so  
they know what to expect.

No worries.

geir



>
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> Lets start a new thread tomorrow, finish discussion since I suspect
>> that all that will say their peace have done so, and work out a vote?
>>
>> I suspect we need to decide :
>>
>> 1) do we need to have any policy?
>>
>> 2) If so, decide the
>>
>>    a) general committer acceptance policy/guidelines to define some
>>       sensible, fair, transparent metrics for accepting a committer
>>       such as
>>        - how long a person must commit patches
>>        - how long participate on the mailing lists
>>
>>    b) general code acceptance policy (what we have been discussing  
>> here)
>>       where the options include
>>        - bring into SVN, grant committer status to some # of people
>>        - bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people
>>        - bring into SVN, follow a) above for people
>>        - none of the above
>>
>> I think that "bring to incubator" is not in scope for this vote, as
>> it's a tool we already have now - we can always do that and decide to
>> sponsor or just participate, but at the end of that process, then the
>> code contribution b) rules should apply.
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>     Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan  
>>> doesn't
>>> like that, so...
>>>
>>>     Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
>>> donated code are:
>>>
>>> 1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some
>>> number
>>> of people) who have worked with the code before
>>>
>>> 2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
>>> grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to  
>>> some
>>> number of people who have worked with the code before
>>>
>>> 3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and
>>> potentially
>>> Geronimo people to form a new project team
>>>
>>>     It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of  
>>> these
>>> is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
>>> console vs the ORB.
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If  
>>>>> you
>>>>> guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know yet, myself.  But certainly one cannot deny there are
>>>> more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
>>>> exactly the same deal as a web console.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/12/05, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both
>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>> seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that really true?  We are talking about a compliant ORB
>>>>>> aren't we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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



Mime
View raw message