Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8ADCD1778B for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:08:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 34571 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2015 17:08:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 34365 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2015 17:08:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 34266 invoked by uid 99); 12 Mar 2015 17:08:28 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:08:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of cedric.champeau@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.178] (HELO mail-we0-f178.google.com) (74.125.82.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:08:02 +0000 Received: by wesw62 with SMTP id w62so17892922wes.0 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qhn2NG0RZuNZFZnpEj1V6tk7W8071cpvPSdE37mwo4g=; b=BRozWhqGYHBHngKcvULSUKL0iKVg0Pbktus/6kJ90V9bxYWbX3OvxDIvqlA1U4WB1C KZc6bQnqb50olimtogWe8O0PL65UHAiPP0XdQ/g89FoaPI4ghmynN8kdvGLavvGeHoN8 dZfb/m5XYOt04tHmyITXCFmk9ees5Q9m/i0PIFV+3RjA0qlo5qf6IOTCTq2pWy82Dnlr kFHT5SMKdHr5n7aPM9NCwSEWOh7HdGLzxBRXqMz5zv6JOeLsMP13Bo+Z3+Pqu7T2kNhU fZj3uxWJG4fy38RDcgqgyvqa3pqKwIpDCbZBYtJIws+gXF3y7zNzB5aqs1BpvhCKcSG/ 55dg== X-Received: by 10.194.63.16 with SMTP id c16mr90640156wjs.117.1426180036584; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (mgu85-1-88-121-56-36.fbx.proxad.net. [88.121.56.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jy7sm13977214wid.22.2015.03.12.10.07.15 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5501C7C3.2060501@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:07:15 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q8OpZHJpYyBDaGFtcGVhdQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Kulp , general@incubator.apache.org CC: Paul King , pascalschumacher , Guillaume Laforge Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal References: <550166FC.3000302@gmx.org> <1061E535-8C81-410C-B221-B3F9F7CA6D2A@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <1061E535-8C81-410C-B221-B3F9F7CA6D2A@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 12/03/2015 17:53, Daniel Kulp wrote: >> On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jochen Wiedmann >> 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