incubator-heraldry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Recordon, David" <drecor...@verisign.com>
Subject Getting Updated JanRain Code In (WAS: RE: Board response to January Report on Heraldry)
Date Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:07:40 GMT
<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
yet...so 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.

--David

Mime
View raw message