incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal
Date Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:07:15 GMT
On 12/03/2015 17:53, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> <jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ... I am quite certain, most Incubator members would accept a project to
>>> have a "vibrant community", if the project could show, for example,...
>> Note that we don't care about the state of the community when entering
>> the incubator, that's an exit criteria. Not even "vibrant" for exit,
>> just a community that is open to including new people and knows how to
>> do that as an Apache project.
>>
> Agreed.   And personally, I prefer the smaller “enter” community compared to the
piling on of bunches of people that may or may not contribute that I’ve seen on a bunch
of projects.         I’d greatly prefer seeing the community start small and “grow”
during incubation.
>
>
Agreed. Even though I think Groovy is IMHO special. It's a 12 years old 
project, which have seen lots of contributors. Some contributed a lot in 
the past, some contribute a lot now and even some always contributed.I 
have no doubt more committers will come, and more people will contribute.

I understand why we need to go through the incubation phase, but there 
are things like this which bother me. I think Apache and Groovy worked 
more or less the same way in the way we accept new committers: 
contribute on a regular basis, with our quality standards and you're 
good to go. Not so many candidates but I can already see some, but in 
any case, I think meritocracy is very important. So I see no point in 
wanting to reach a target number of committers. Having a large number of 
quality contributions, more contributors is IMHO more important than 
people having write access to the repo.

And as seeing a language like Groovy "grow" during incubation, it all 
depends how long we will stay in incubating phase. I just recently 
realized for example that we would have to version with -incubating. For 
our community, for our users (and for me), it is very strange to have a 
12 yo project suddenly having version with -incubating. For example 
we're about to release 2.4.2, and then we would have 2.4.3-incubating. I 
don't like it at all because it sounds like "not ready". So the shorter 
the incubation phase, the better. And if there are arbitrary objectives 
like "let's reach X committers", I don't really see the point. 
Understanding the Apache Way is important, adapting the release process 
is important, making sure that we respect the community is very 
important. The number of committers is not.

-- 
Cédric Champeau
Groovy language developer
http://twitter.com/CedricChampeau
http://melix.github.io/blog


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


Mime
View raw message