incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Incubator dependencies in Apache projects
Date Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:11:36 GMT

On Sep 30, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>  
> wrote:
>> On Monday 29 September 2008 12:08:52 pm Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> On Sep 26, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>> Agreed. We've done this before and i bring it up yet again :)
>>>>
>>>> Geronimo PMC used Yoko, Yoko failed, they ended up absorbing most  
>>>> of
>>>> the code.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't call Yoko *failed*. It didn't generate enough interest to
>>> go TLP, but did become a sub-project of Geronimo. Also, portions  
>>> were
>>> donated to CXF. Seems like a *success* to me.
>>
>> I have to agree.   All parts of the Yoko codebase are now supported  
>> and
>> enhanced in active projects.   That sounds like a success, not a  
>> failure.
>
> So, there is a subproject in Geronimo which is essentially the Yoko
> codebase, released in a way so non-Geronimo users can consume that
> codebase?? If so, Excellent.

Yes. That's correct. The Yoko ORB is a Geronimo subproject. Yoko  
committers were adopted into Geronimo. Yoko is released separately and  
is being consumed by other projects (i.e. Apache Harmony).

> But the matter of fact is, that the
> STATUS page says "dissolved, with parts going to Geronimo and CXF",
> which implies a different story, and indeed says "Yoko didn't make
> it.", i.e. failure. Please call it for what it is, it IS Ok for
> podlings to end, dissolve, absorbed, evaporate and whatever other
> possible end-of-life we can imagine... Just because a podling fails,
> it doesn't mean that any particular person or group of persons fail.
> Two different things.


I wasn't involved with the wording of the Yoko status page, nor with  
the resolution as they left incubator. Not familiar with why it was  
worded in the way they were...

I don't think we need to debate semantics, here.  I think we're  
largely in agreement. We're debating shades of grey, here... IMO,  
"fail" is harsh description of the outcome.

--kevan



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