incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sander Striker <>
Subject Re: Clearing the air round Incubator and Ruper (was Re: projects incubated by the incubator PMC)
Date Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:04:03 GMT
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 18:49, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > First of all, we are in the process of deciding and clearly documenting
> > that only TLPs are to be incubated. Why? Because in Apache there are
> > only TLPs. Thus, Ruper is incubated on the premises that it wants to
> > become a TLP for artifact handling.
> Are you "in the process of deciding", or is this a decision?  Where is the
> decision being made?
> I don't feel strongly pro or con, but if this is the case, then don't be
> surprised if the amount of confusion about "when should some non-trivial
> amount of code coming into the ASF go through the incubator?" increases.
> Many of the edge cases I've seen discussed (such as Wagon) have been
> natural extensions of or adjuncts to products released by an existing TLP.

There was a discussion on the board list at the end of 2002.  What was
basically the point was that every external codebase would come through
Incubator.  No exceptions (for obvious reasons).  IIRC the conclusion
was that no PMC was to accept new projects on their own anymore.
There is ofcourse always the question between when a trivial patch
becomes non-trivial enough to warrant going through incubator. I
personally think that when you have to ask, you've got a incubator

> Often it'll even be a proposal for a next-dot-oh of an existing release.
> Or another module for Apache httpd written by a company interested in
> donating it to the httpd project for inclusion into the core or as part of
> a contrib-modules release by the httpd project.  So this could have a
> chilling effect on existing TLPs when confronted with the question,
> "has this contribution surpassed a threshold and should be sent through
> the incubator?".

The reason to get Incubator involved is to be sure the paperwork is
in order.  If a new mod_whatever is to be donated we need a software
grant, for instance.  To not have to put the burden of knowing what
paperwork is needed on each TLP, this knowledge is bundled in Incubator
(at least, that's the idea).

> I don't think you're going to see the board mandate that each TLP have
> only one product.  A single "community" can easily manage/oversee the
> release of multiple products.

Even semingly single project TLPs have multiple projects.  HTTP Server
has httpd, httpd-test, flood, apreq, just to name a few.  I agree that
we don't want every project to be a TLP.  But maybe Nicola meant that
from a legal standpoint there are only TLPs.


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

View raw message