harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com>
Subject Re: [discussion] Committer Addition Process
Date Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:02:34 GMT

you can stop playing devil's advocate now. You made your point. Please try
and be a little more constructive, we have enough advocates dealing with
this stuff already!

You're not being very logical either. You're protesting the formality of
some processes but at the same time you're forcing people to be super-duper
careful with every word in every email, since you mock a clause like

> >1) Anyone with a contribution that would belong in SVN can be  
> >considered for commit status by the PMC (PPMC while in incubation).   
> >This contribution can be anything - new code, a patch to existing  code, 
> >documentation, a change to the website, testing code or other  
> >resources, etc. (Hopefully this gets people interested in harvesting  
> >good docs from the WIKI, as that's worth commit status IMO)

by taking the "anything" out of context and mocking the entire email based
on that. Perhaps you'd feel better if this paragraph were vetted by a lawyer
and had all the various WHEREASes in there along with disclaimers for any

> ------------
> build.sh
> #!/bin/sh
> ant $*

Okay, that *was* funny.

> I read books on compiler theory in my spare time and get GCC to output 
> asm to see all the cool native codes that come out (god PPC is so much 
> cooler than Intel).  I also know couple things about coding in a hot 
> legal environment and how to be appropriately paranoid while still 
> moving forward.

One of the goals here with harmony is that we can keep the "average developer"
from having to know too much about legal environments, keep them from being
paranoid, while avoiding heating up the legal environment in the first
place. That said, having "non-average developers" help out with reaching that
goal would be a Good Thing(tm)!

> Note that this means voting rights too.  This should be automated with a 
> demon process that runs once a month and reaps dead people....  No 
> whining, you can't argue with CVS^M^M^MSVN's commit logging.

Actually, if that were the case for lawyers too, all this mess would be
easier. The ASF has argued about commit logs with third parties before and
it wasn't fun at all and took loads of time and energy.

Look, we're aiming to do a full and compliant J2SE effort here. The
"compliant" part of that phrase is kinda important to us, and brings with
it a whole lot of legal crap to take care of. I'm not exactly qualified
to do that, but Geir has lots of experience with this stuff and I trust
him to take care of this properly (as does the rest of the ASF, by the way,
and most people probably would be wise to follow suit).

I think he's been doing that very well. I had hoped sorting out the legal
stuff would go a little quicker, but legal stuff never seems to go
quickly. By frustrating this process we'll only make it go offline which
would not be very cool.



View raw message