incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)
Date Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:16:17 GMT
Oh, I totally understand what you're saying.

And I respectfully and totally disagree with it on several levels.

We can leave it at that, or you can propose a Resolution to the Board
to enforce terminology whenever different communities want to
communicate here at Apache. Should the Board pass such a resolution,
then the svn community will conform. We are not special; we just use
different terms. All projects are given broad leeway in how they run
their project. That *is* part of the Apache Way. We are very slightly
"non-standard" in one way, and other projects differ in other ways. If
you want to iron out those disparities, then get a Board Resolution to
do it.


On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 18:45, Craig L Russell <> wrote:
> I wish we had completed this discussion while subversion was still in
> incubation, while the subversion community could learn the common Apache
> terminology and have no need for translation of the terms.
> Instead, a suggestion to that effect was brutally shot down.
> And since it's apparently not clear what my point is, I'll repeat it:
> Apache has a common set of terms that everyone who participates is expected
> to understand. They are documented in the foundation "How we work" pages.
> Projects are free to have their own set of rules and terminology. If they
> differ much from standard Apache governance, there's an opportunity for them
> to have their own bylaws.
> When communicating with the wider Apache community, the standard terms are
> all that are needed. Parentheticals in such things as board reports, which
> are widely disseminated, might seem useful early in the project but are
> unnecessary very quickly. If they serve to clarify for the wider community,
> ok. But if parentheticals' only purpose is project communication, I believe
> that they are best avoided, as project members should know the Apache
> terminology (before exiting incubation).
> Craig
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Didn't you just suggest that Greg summarily drop
>> his use of local terminology from his reports, and
>> don't you consider the Subversion report a community
>> document, and therefore of educational value for the
>> wider community, not just the pmc, in some sense?
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Craig L Russell <>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 4:09:19 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> Please read my messages again. I'm not suggesting anything of the  sort.
>>> Craig
>>> On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
>>>> Cmon Craig.  Subversion is a 10-year old  community.  Making major
>>>> changes
>>>> in basic terminology isn't  something that happens in a day.
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect,  Oracle
>>> 408 276-5638
>>> P.S. A  good JDO? O,  Gasp!
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To  unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For  additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> 408 276-5638
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message