myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Marinschek <martin.marinsc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving forward on the Oracle donation
Date Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:02:49 GMT
Same objections here.

How is Oracle going to maintain code when they don't have the ability to commit?

Plus, I think the MyFaces PMC was expecting to be able to hold a last
final vote at the time when ADF faces gets out of the incubator. We'd
need to discuss this on the PMC again if we do things differently.

Or, to put it another way, we only voted for ADF faces to be able to
get into the incubator, not out of the incubator so far.

regards,

Martin

On 12/29/05, Adam Winer <awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/28/05, Ted Husted <ted.husted@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/28/05, Martin Cooper <martinc@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/28/05, Ted Husted <ted.husted@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I spoke to Omar yesterday, and he mentioned that the paperwork would
> > > > go out early next week, and that he would post a snapshot of the
> > > > donation (e.g. tarball) by then too. If for any reason, Omar can't
> > > > make his copy public, we could always put it in one of our Apache home
> > > > directories (on people.apache.org).
> > > >
> > > > The process is:
> > > >
> > > > * Get the grant on file with the ASF Secretary (I can tell when that
> > > happens).
> > > > * Post the IP checklist.
> > > > * Complete the action items (which includes a snapshot of the donation).
> > > > * Update the IP checklist.
> > > > * Check the donation into the MyFaces repository.
> > > > * From that point, the MyFaces committers treat the code as if we
> > > > wrote it ourselves.
> > >
> > >  This appears to effectively side-step the Incubator. Is that wise, for such
> > > a large and significant donation?
> >
> > AFAICT, this process follows the IP Clearance protocol set down by the
> > Incubator project.
> >
> > * http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >
> > Since we are following the documented protocol, I don't understand how
> > the word "bypassed" would apply.
> >
> > An attractive aspect of the IP Clearance protocol is that it does
> > *not* allow committers to be "grandfathered" into the project. Anyone
> > who wants to work on the ADF Faces donation will have to earn their
> > karma the old fashioned way.
>
> Ted,
>
> Can you explain this a bit further?  I'm concerned about the
> practical aspects given that we already have an existing team
> of developers here at Oracle.  Let's assume that John and I
> have become committers.  The practical effect of denying
> any grandfathering is that anyone at my team can still effectively
> check in, but I get stuck with the job of doing all the grunt work -
> they bug me, hand me some code, and say "Check it in, Adam".
> That's not a particularly effective use of my time. :(
>
> It's also not especially great that we temporarily lose any ability
> to do anything with our own source - we give the code, but at
> first none of us can check in *anything* until one by one we're
> approved?
>
> Skipping an incubator phase also means that there's no period
> where the existing MyFaces committers can say "nope, that's gotta
> change" - I'm sure there'll be some things that come up when more
> eyeballs get on it.  Otherwise, the only way I can see to get any
> MyFaces committers to see the code is with NDAs, so they can
> see it while it's still Oracle IP - I don't think any of us want to go
> that route.
>
> A basic question:  are you saying that you prefer that we don't
> go through an incubator, or saying that incubator isn't an option
> at all?
>
> -- Adam
>


--

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

Mime
View raw message