ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Ant as a top-level project
Date Fri, 25 Oct 2002 06:14:01 GMT
At first I thought I wouldn't have a real opinion so wanted to see
other people's responses first.  After having slept over it, I realize
I do have an opinion ...

The short form: +1 for having with exactly one
codebase, Ant.  -1 for a new container project named
+0 for a new container project that is *not* named Ant but contained
the Ant codebase.  My concern is that we must not dilute the name Ant.

To me it is a rather hard decision to make as I'm wearing several hats
and have to balance that in some way.

The ASF member may see benefit for the ASF if we get rid of as many
container projects as we can (at the cost of swamping the board, but
that's another issue).

As a PMC member, it may make live easier for the next Jakarta PMC if
codebases would leave the area where the Jakarta PMC has to monitor
each and every commit.  Ant may not be a problem for the current PMC
(Geir is the only PMC member who is technically not an Ant committer),
but I'm sure the next Jakarta PMC won't have as many Ant committers on
it as the current one.  Then again, Ant's codebase is probably one of
the best monitored codebases you can find at Apache, and this won't
change in the future.

As a member of the Ant community, I fail to see what the benefit for
the Ant community would be.  I pretty much doubt that Ant could be any
more successful than it is right now - Ant doesn't need increased
visibility at all.

Finally, as an Ant committer, I just now found out that I do have an
opinion.  This one is based on a mail by Roy sent to reorg@ and the
Jakarta PMC list and I want to share the relevant excerpt:

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Roy T. Fielding <> wrote:

> The concept of a PMC, and the reason that anyone having a vote on
> the project code-base should be a member of the PMC, is to provide
> legal protection to those people as individuals.  Not being on a PMC
> (as defined by the bylaws) means that each and every decision made
> by those committers is outside the scope of Apache's legal
> protection, which in turn means that if a mistake is made (or some
> asshole lawyer just feels like it), any suit against the committer
> actions (such as infringement of some unknown patent) would have to
> be defended by the committers on their own.  The ASF would be able
> to defend the code itself, but not the people whose actions were
> outside the PMC.

with that, I pretty much feel that every Ant committer needs to be in
a PMC to gain the protection she/he deserves.  To do that, Ant would
have to become a top-level project, thus my +1 above.

Starting another container project will result in the same problems
the existing containers face - the PMCs are legally responsible for
more code than they can monitor.  If there was a new container, it
should be extremely small.  Collecting Gump, Maven, Centipede, Ant,
Antidote whatever would certainly be too much for this new project's


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message