incubator-heraldry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Leung <>
Subject Re: Getting Updated JanRain Code In (WAS: RE: Board response to January Report on Heraldry)
Date Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:17:16 GMT

On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Recordon, David wrote:

> <snip>
> Maybe what makes more sense is removing the code they contributed a  
> few
> months ago and starting fresh with them tar'ing up their repository  
> they
> want to contribute and have it voted in on the heraldry-dev list?
> Activity level issues aside, we need to figure out how to get this  
> code
> in so that we as the Heraldry community can resolve the concerns  
> around
> activity and methodology.
> </snip>
> I see this as the current hurdle to us moving forward right now.  I  
> know
> the ASF is about individuals, but we're honestly not quite there
> JanRain has code that updates what they have already  
> committed.
> I see two possible routes and am looking for feedback and a discussion
> around what makes the most amount of sense.  This is of course  
> excluding
> the "don't let this legacy code in and thus close the project  
> tack".  I
> think at this point we need to assume we're in this mess since we
> haven't been following The Apache Way and IMHO may need to do  
> something
> which also isn't quite The Apache Way in order to allow us to correct
> the situation.
> 1) Allow the next bulk commit (IPR is all from Heraldry commiters and
> JanRain has a corporate CLA)
>  - Pros
>   - Fastest in terms of letting us move forward for future commits?
>   - Cleaner from a code history perspective
>  - Cons
>   - Yet another bulk commit to review
>   - Is a bit funky
> 2) Treat JanRain's initial commit as null-and-void, remove the  
> code, and
> have them tar up what they want to contribute and vote it in
>  - Pros
>   - Much closer to The Apache Way in terms of dealing with external  
> code
> grants
>   - Cleaner from an IPR perspective
>  - Cons
>   - Could be slower? (testing builds is actually probably easier than
> reviewing bulk commits)
>   - Is a bit funky
> Am I missing an option here?
> I think my preference would actually be option 2.  I don't think  
> either
> path is perfect, though I do strongly feel we need to get over this
> hurdle in order to make progress on the next.  Explicitly cc'ing Bill
> and Noel as they've been engaged in this discussion on the general  
> list.

There is one time during the incubation process when we allow a major  
drop of code.  That's the initial import of the project.   Given the  
current state of the project, I think you could almost argue that all  
these block commits be wound up together and regarded as that initial  
import.   I believe that we can find a way to get the code into svn.

What I am still not convinced about is whether or not we are actually  
going to see any development discussions on this list.   David, I've  
heard you interpreting Kevin/JanRain's actions, but I haven't heard  
anyone from Janrain - and there are 7 Heraldry committers from  
JanRain, not just Kevin - explicitly say that they are also moving  
the development discussions to the heraldry lists.   If fhat isn't  
part of the commitment, then getting the rest of the code in here is  
pointless.   Given the history of the podling so far, I'm not willing  
to assume that is implied in the decision to get off darcs and onto  
svn.   I'd like to hear directly from the folks at JanRain on this.    
In order for this to work, we need to have all the committers,  
regardless of employer, participating and engaged.   Right now only a  
fraction of the people with commit privileges are involved in this  
conversation.   I would really like to see the Heraldry committers  
use this list to propose a plan for how to proceed.   This needs to  
happen soon.


View raw message