myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthias Wessendorf" <mat...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Dojo discussion - opensourcing the jsf dojo components project
Date Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:05:39 GMT
On general@incubator.apache.org Craig Russel (SUN)
agreed that a software grant is fine.

-M

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it is fine here. My main reason for the incubator list was
> just b/c this project
> was completely developed offline. So, it is (to me) a new project. That's all.
>
> For me, a software grant would be pretty much enough.
>
> -M
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:03 PM, simon.kitching@chello.at
> <simon.kitching@chello.at> wrote:
>> It's great that people are thinking carefully about the right way to handle
>> this new code. But after some pondering, I'm happy for it to go directly
>> into a sandbox here and not through the incubator.
>>
>> My reasons are:
>>
>> Incubation is necessary when a brand-new project is created, in order to be
>> sure that a new non-apache development group learn to use apache-style
>> collaboration. But that's not relevant in this case; Werner is familiar with
>> all this and I'l confident he will make sure everything happens in the open.
>>
>> Incubation is also necessary when the code is for an existing project but
>> that existing project doesn't have committers that will review/commit
>> patches for the new code and doesn't want to grant new unknown people commit
>> rights immediately. But again that's not relevant here; Werner will
>> presumably be acting as reviewer for patches.
>>
>> So all we need to be concerned about here is that the code is legally
>> unencumbered (a grant should do that), and that there is enough of a
>> community to maintain it long term (which some time in the sandbox can
>> test). And of course that we're all happy with the architecture etc. But for
>> that we need to see the code :-)
>>
>> I can't see any other reasons for requiring incubation...
>>
>> Definitely worth asking the incubator group their opinion too, but hopefully
>> they just push it back to us..
>>
>> Regards, Simon
>>
>> Martin Marinschek schrieb:
>>>
>>> Yes, definitely incubator should be kept in the loop. But I feel a
>>> Grant should be enough, if it is part of the sandbox.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 7/7/08, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well best probably is to ask there, but I dont think there should
>>>>> be too much of a problem of getting it in directly without
>>>>> having to go through the incubator, due to the nature of the code being
>>>>> developed 100% by me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am fine with that. But I just want to make sure everything is fine
>>>> and correct with the Apache guidelines. Since the scope of the
>>>> contribution is a (to my understanding) separate project. Perhaps
>>>> a software grant is pretty fine. Perhaps even that is not needed.
>>>>
>>>> Don't get me wrong. I am not against this
>>>> (I was pinged offline already asking "why").
>>>> So, again I am not against it. I just want to make sure
>>>> we follow the right way.
>>>>
>>>> -M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, IMO the best is to give a heads-up on the general@incubator list.
>>>>>> So see, what their feeling is about this. They deal with these type
of
>>>>>> things more frequently than everybody of us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generally, I think it is a good project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org

Mime
View raw message