incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthieu Riou" <matth...@offthelip.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet : Link Error - please use this link
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:10:48 GMT
On Feb 1, 2008 1:15 PM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:

>
> On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 12:37 -0800, Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 2008 10:04 AM, Simon Nash <nash@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Paul Fremantle wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kelvin, NoNameProposers
> > > >
> > > > Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard
> > > > questions! So here I go:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you can explain why this effort isn't being rolled into the
> > > > Tuscany work.
> > > >
> > > > There are some obvious reasons why I am confused by this proposal:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Tuscany already has the objective of producing code for SDO, and
> > > > already has code for SDO.
> > > > 2. Tuscany was another proposal to the IPMC predominantly coming
> from
> > > > IBM and BEA employees.
> > > > 3. The BEA committers left Tuscany and created a fork elsewhere
> > > > 3. Tuscany has been identified as lacking diversity.
> > > >
> > > > Why will this project gain diversity when Tuscany is finding it
> hard?
> > > > This move seems designed to make it even harder for both Tuscany and
> > > > NNYP to get diversity by splitting the pool of potential committers
> > > > even more thinly.
> > > >
> > > > I did read the paragraph on the relationship to Tuscany but I'm
> afraid
> > > > I came out more confused.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure there are more hard questions but I think that's enough to
> be
> > > > going on with.
> > > >
> > > I'll jump in on the points related to Tuscany.  I don't think this new
> > > incubator would necessarily harm Tuscany's diversity.  If it broadens
> the
> > > open source community around SDO, there will more people interested
> > > in SDO and they may get involved in Tuscany to improve Tuscany's SCA
> > > support for SDO (as well as the many other databindings that Tuscany
> > > SCA provides).
> > >
> > > I think it's good for this work to be done in an open community rather
> > > than as an in-house collaboration between vendors.  I'm not sure why
> > > the points about the history of IBM and BEA's involvement in Tuscany
> > > are being raised.  The facts as stated are correct, and I'm sure the
> > > IBM and BEA people putting forward this proposal are well aware of
> them.
> > > If they have decided that they are willing to work together on this
> > > project and open it to a broader community, I see this as something
> > > positive that should be encouraged.
> > >
> >
> > And what about bringing this in Tuscany instead of creating another
> podling?
> > Seems that the goals are similar enough to have a single project driving
> the
> > effort and it would probably greatly improve cross-pollination.
>
> I haven't followed this thread at all, so I could be off-base, but
> surely it would need to become a podling, even if its destination were a
> subproject of Tuscany?
>

Nor necessarily. I'm pretty sure we've had additional code granted to an
existing podling before. I can actually think of at least 2 past
occurrences.

Matthieu


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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message