incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Min Cha <minslo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Date Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:33:01 GMT
Hi.

I think that Matt have well explained needs for Commons Incubator . In
addition to that, this is a short story from my experience. One month ago, I
introduced my component called as Robust-Task through Commons mailing and
Incubator mailing. There were some opinions for my component and I thought
my component may be suitable for Commons because it is relatively small and
similar to Commons Chain. So, I wanted that my component is incubated by
Commons. However, I saw a point that I don`t commit anymore if I send my
component to Commons Sandbox which seems to be used as incubator in Commons.
I thought that this is not reasonable. This was a difficult problem to me.

With this experience, now I also see a need for Commons Incubator. In my
opinion, Commons Incubator aims at resolving a new problem, not an
overlapped problem.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 5:32 AM
> > Well, the point is: we are
> > talking about small libraries.
> >
> > Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2
> > developers.
> > They want to bring this code to Commons. What to do? IP
> > clearance is
> > one thing. But what about the 2 developers? Just make them
> > committers
> > while they have no clue about Apache? Doesn't sound like a
> > good idea.
> > Just accepting their code and make them send patches until
> > we feel
> > they are ready? Feels not appropriate since they are the
> > authors of
> > the code. On the other hand going through the "normal"
> > incubator is a
> > bit over the top for a project that is so small that it is
> > not
> > targeting to become it's own project. Building a community
> > is not
> > really that applicable in this case. It's rather about
> > integrating it
> > into an existing community.
> >
>
> Thanks Torsten--I think you've pointed out the proverbial Scylla and
> Charybdis here:
>
>  * IP clearance means reducing the original authors of codebase X to
> contributor status.  It could be argued that this is a way of teaching them
> that within the context of the ASF, the direction of "their" code will be
> determined by the community.  More likely, however, they will simply opt to
> take their ball and go home.  Surely there are better ways to teach the
> "Apache way."
>
>  * "full" Incubation sets a small component up for failure to graduate due
> to not gaining a community large or diverse enough to satisfy Incubator
> graduation requirements, when, were the same code to begin life in the
> Commons sandbox, originated by ANY existing ASF committer, it would be
> subject to somewhat less stringent graduation (to Commons "proper")
> requirements.
>
> The other problem with full incubation, inordinate effort to set up _n_
> relatively tiny podlings, really affects infrastructure more than it affects
> Commons.
>
> The current state of affairs makes it highly impractical for any codebase
> that includes IP from a non-ASF-committer to enter Apache Commons.  What we
> are asking for could be alternately seen as the Incubator's blessing to
> establish a "decontamination chamber" much like our sandbox but where
> community members can commit prior to their component being accepted into
> Commons "proper" and their consequentially becoming "true" ASF committers.
>  Note that some of my wording reflects a perception on my part that there is
> a difference between a podling committer and a committer to some TLP (or TLP
> subproject).  If that is not the case, I'd be interested to know that, but I
> don't believe it affects the overall argument here either way.  We need an
> officially sanctioned concept for "Commons podling committer."
>
> [SNIP]
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
> > > <justin@erenkrantz.com>
> > wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > >>
> > >> -1 (vote, not veto).
>
> Finally, I'm apparently not familiar enough with incubator procedures to
> understand "when a -1 is not a veto."  Can anyone provide any more info on
> that?  :)
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Min Cha, Dreaming Developer
Task Framework :
http://code.google.com/p/robust-coupe/wiki/RobustTaskIntroduction
English : http://minslovey.blogspot.com
Korean : http://minslovey.tistory.com

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