geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Date Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:09:44 GMT
On Mar 14, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding.  AFAIK, that has *never*
>>> been the way the incubator has worked.  Every podling has supposed
>>> to have had a PPMC.  If I'm wrong, please correct me; where did you
>>> (and evidently others) read whatever it was that said a TLP PMC
>>> could serve for a podling?
>> If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there
>>  was the concept of a PPMC.  Geronimo was the first project to get a
>>  PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project.  All of
>>  the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be
>>  subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working
>>  with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure
>> we weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects
>>  that acted as a single whole.
> So, basically, the idea that a sponsoring PMC could/should
> direct a podling comes from the time of Geronimo's own incubation?

That was the way it was when we were incubated, and I was not aware  
of the change.

>> Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for a project that has an
>> existing community.  Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that
>> is supposed merging communities with another.
> You disgree with the doctrine of 'we don't know where a
> podling will go until graduation,' I take it.

I think a podling can change direction during incubation, but I think  
they do and should always have a target in mind.

>> Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once that is setup
>> it will be hard to merge.
> I disagree.  There's nothing preventing the TLP PMC
> members from getting on the PPMC.  And other podlings
> have managed to merge with little or no pain.  Derby,
> for example.

I think Derby has done a great job integrating into DB, but I would  
like to see even closer ties in the Geronimo project.

>> I think we need an incubation procedure that instead is designed to
>> setup and assure that the new incubating group is merging the target
>> communities and that incubation is only complete once continuous
>> whole.  This is exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to
>> achieve.  In originally email I sent out on this and the
>> conversations I had with a some of the board members before the
>> email, I asked if we can "consolidate" our communities.  This is what
>> everyone was excited about and thought was possible in the incubator
>> and now I feel that the new incubation rules seem to be setup to
>> prevent exactly this....
> One of the purposes of the incubator is to normalise expectations.
> 'Indoctrinate,' if you like, newcomers in the Apache ethos.  A
> group of people working on an external project, which comes
> wholesale to Apache with that education being provided by the
> accepting TLP, can lead to exactly the sort of problems we had
> a few years ago.  So the rules aren't there to prevent the
> consolidation of communities; they're there (in part) to limit
> heresy. :-)

That makes since.


View raw message