Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of cedric.champeau@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB917RLPFEB8D9A29AT0puWjpZYducN0qh3SP4ZZo+-gB9sbRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+ULb+tHEc5N9vDvu526Jmb=te4F3yCwCWWJxxMC07EAz_35wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK2iWdRvFfFOJzBjOCp=xhy4qDayzbJ1TTB4bLdGxTDcLT_eKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+ULb+saF16Bus5oOSftq52jbuKh7CvG9yC4j5W--Cr38S5Qgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADQzvm=CDqComxGqagEhPxUbvm4XxPU30Vo_B0M9ec0FsqDe6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB917RLPFEB8D9A29AT0puWjpZYducN0qh3SP4ZZo+-gB9sbRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:36:45 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CADQzvm=kJrGJof6i=5uMsGg+MPcXrUK8CZWuYTM9FKtGgcw+qg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal
From: =?UTF-8?Q?C=C3=A9dric_Champeau?= <cedric.champeau@gmail.com>
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>, Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au>,
	Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>,
 pascalschumacher <pascalschumacher@gmx.net>,
	Guillaume Laforge <glaforge@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044280faca48c205110939c0

--f46d044280faca48c205110939c0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2015-03-11 21:24 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org>:

> Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to happ=
en
> on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web UI for
> merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors git
> repositories from git.apache.org to github.
>
> Yes, we are aware (and TBH a bit worried about it) of it, but we hope tha=
t
it will be minor inconvenience. In particular GitHub has proved to be a
very effective tool to bring new contributors and we fear that having the
Groovy project in the middle of a ton of other projects in the "apache"
organization will reduce the number of PRs we receive, but I guess this is
a price to pay.

I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board if
> groovy enters incubation.
>
> Thanks!

> Benedikt
>
> 2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 C=C3=A9dric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.co=
m>:
>
> > A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for
> the
> > past 4 years:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=3D2011-01-=
01&to=3D2015-03-11&type=3Dc
> > and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHu=
b
> > helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos =
to
> > complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in
> GitHub
> > doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors ar=
e
> > preserved.
> >
> > While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep
> knowledge
> > of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular contributors t=
o
> > become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
> > following quality standards, take care of important things like
> maintaining
> > backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in the pas=
t,
> > but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons. In the
> end
> > I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but meritocracy is
> > also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
> > contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.
> >
> > 2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one
> thing
> > > > caught my eye.
> > > >
> > > > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
> > > initial
> > > > commiters are only 5.
> > >
> > > This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
> > > preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because
> looking
> > > at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors
> makes
> > > me wonder exactly the same thing.
> > >
> > > In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is an=
d
> > > position
> > > the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
> > >
> > > That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the
> best
> > > way
> > > to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the
> project
> > > and have contributed in the past get invited.
> > >
> > > There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
> > > appreciate Incubator's
> > > collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
> > > that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in th=
e
> > > past.
> > > Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter
>

--f46d044280faca48c205110939c0--