incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@odoko.co.uk>
Subject Re: Graduating a part of an incubating project into an existing TLP
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:35:48 GMT
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 9/12/06, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 12 September 2006 05:52, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> > Would this work in terms of the Incubator policies? Do we need some
>> > other steps along the way, or can we streamline the process somehow?
>>
>> No, this is not what incubation is about. You have two main goals to
>> reach
>> before talking graduation;
>>
>>  1. Clear out any IP issues.
>>  2. Show that the commnuity is healthy.
>>
>> Your suggestion seems to indicate that you are looking at the 'stability'
>> or 'health' of the codebase, which has nothing to do with the Incubator.
> 
> Not really, the point of the exercise is that the Graffito project
> (whose goal is to build a portlet-based CMS framework) is perhaps not
> the best community for building a generic object-content mapping tool
> based on the JCR API. There are a number of Jackrabbit committers and
> contributors who are interested in participating, but don't really
> care about the full Graffito framework. In fact it even seems to me
> that the recent interest from within the Jackrabbit community is
> threatening to shadow the real goal of the Graffito project, see for
> example the distribution of discussion topics on the Graffito mailing
> list within the past two months.
> 
> My point about a "clear and working baseline" release was about
> simplifying the transition rather than being the primary goal.
> 
>> I can also read in that you might be talking about "donating" parts of
>> the
>> codebase to Jackrabbit. Again, I think the best way to proceed with
>> that is
>> to aim high for graduation of Graffito and then worry about the "svn mv"
>> later.
>>
>> Set the bar high, aim for graduation... ;o)
> 
> The problem I see with this approach is that even though it seems that
> we could fairly soon demonstrate a healthy community for the JCR
> mapping tool, especially given the recent influx of Jackrabbit
> contributors, it might take quite a while to do that for the full
> Graffito project. If you filter out the JCR mapping commits and
> mailing list discussions from the past six months, you're left with
> little ongoing substance on the Graffito project. In fact I feel that
> it would be easier for the Graffito community to focus and get back on
> track for graduation if the JCR mapping tool was excluded from the
> scope of the project.
> 
> One option would be to split the Graffito project into two incubating
> projects, one for the portlet CMS framework and one for the JCR
> mapping tool, but the process and infrastructure overhead for that
> seems pretty high.

As Niclas said, the aims of the incubator are:

1. Clear out any IP issues.
2. Show that the community is healthy.

Now, if the Graffito project were to grant the code to Jackrabbit, with
no new committers joining Jackrabbit alongside the code, then you're
talking about an IP clearance process, and, to my mind, it is pretty
much the same as a project being donated code (without community) from
outside the ASF.

Therefore, I'd research the rules for receiving a software donation to
an existing TLP.

That's my take.

Upayavira


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message