incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Davanum Srinivas" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Do we really need an incubator?
Date Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:26:20 GMT
Please see below:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> Dan,
>> Seriously, Can you please give me one concrete  instance where a user
>> gave up because it was too hard?
> It falls into a few situations:
> 1) Without stuff in the main repo, you cannot do plugins that do things
> similar to the "mvn jetty:run" and have maven pick them up without wacky
> changes to your ~/.m2/settings.xml which would then affect all projects.

Is this the average user that uses the build process to generate jars
that they use?

> 2) It IS a support burden on the community as people ask "why can't it find
> it?" even if you document the hell out of it.   People tend to not read docs
> when they expect their tool to work like it always works.   Maven people
> expect to just declare dependencies and have it work.   When it doesn't they
> get frustrated and blame the project for not deploying things correctly and
> move on.

Well, then the tools should have a way to inform users that there may
be additional configuration steps needed.

> 3) This is the killer one: we did have xfire folks not able to migrate as
> the corporate firewalls and proxies and such would NOT allow access to
>   (to be fair, they didn't allow direct access to central
> either, but their internal repo managers did have access, but only to very
> limitted repos like central and

Then maybe mvn is the wrong tool? :)

> 4) A couple of the recent versions of the archetype plugin was unable to
> create projects from archetypes not available in central.  Yes, it was a bug
> in the plugin, but it affected any archetypes not in central.   With mavens
> < 2.0.9's broken "automatically grab the latest plugin" thing, creating
> projects from archetypes for anything not in central was impossible.  (yes,
> that was a bug in the plugin and the maven team did fix it fairly quickly,
> but only incubator projects would have been affected.....)
> So yes, there are instances.

see above
>> Again, Are u stating that removing this restriction would have reduced
>> the time taken to graduate from 2 years to 1 year?
> We'll never know.  It certainly affected some of the features we
> concentrated on and thus may or may not have affected who we could have
> attracted as committers.   It would all be conjecture.   I know it DID
> prevent people migrating from xfire (see above) so I know our user base was
> lower than it could have been.

guess we'll never know.

>> We are *NOT* here to rubber stamp external code. Which is what we will
>> become.
> Huh?   We would be approving proper Apache Incubator releases and making
> sure the meet Apache legal requirements prior to release.     How is that
> rubber stamping external code?

Sorry "external" is a wrong word here.

> Basically, IMO, if a release from an incubator project completely meets ALL
> the legal requirements (none of the "it's ok, fix it for next time" things),
> it legally can go to central and it should.  (also, this means the project
> needs to have all the CLA's for the imported code, all the LGPL stuff
> resolved, etc...)   Saying incubator releases can only be used in places and
> with tools that will prompt with a "this is an incubator artifact, us it?
> y/n"  is, IMO, placing a field of use restriction on them which is against
> our own ideals.

We need a way to inform our users that a community may not form in the
code that they are using. Seriously, it's far away from FOU's.

> Should maven have a feature that the user can enable to allow various
> filtering and stuff, certainly.   That's a great idea.   For users that
> care, that would be great.    Should it be required?  IMO, no.   The license
> the artifacts are distributed under doesn't require it and thus, legally,
> it's not required.

See last comment above.

> Dan
>> My feeling is that pmc members are taking their mentor role more
>> prominence over incubator pmc role which is to make sure we setup
>> meaningful mechanisms to make sure all aspects are balanced.
>> In this specific case, a trivial road block has been lifted and
>> incubator is no longer what it is supposed to be. There are no longer
>> any checks/balances in the system,
>> So we should just promote IP Clearance as the primary mechanism and
>> get existing pmc's or even this PMC to just go ahead and rubber stamp
>> code and get it over with.
>> thanks,
>> dims
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>> Sorry...Need to take this off my chest before the official VOTE.
>>>> Looking at the maven repo thread, begs the question. Do we really need
>>>> an incubator?
>>>> Isn't it just a IP Clearance SVN now once people have their way with
>>>> no distinction at all between incubator and non-incubator code?
>>>> What incentives are there left to graduate? How come a little bit of
>>>> pain that makes something obvious to end users is such a no-no? Why is
>>>> it such a big deal to remove one tiny pebble in their path? A lot of
>>>> folks have made it thru...including CXF. gathering users on the merits
>>>> of their code/community. It's not like the pebble stopped users from
>>>> trying things out. So what's the big deal?
>>> Honestly, I think CXF would have graduated significantly sooner if the
>>> central maven repo was used.   We specifically did not do a lot of
>>> "maven"
>>> things (like creating archtypes and such) due to the extra difficulty in
>>> using those things.   We don't yet use maven for any of the
>>> samples/demos,
>>> etc....    It IS a major barrier for a lot people so we didn't
>>> concentrate
>>> on it.   Had the code gone to central, we could have worked on that as
>>> well
>>> which would have opened up new opportunities for "mavenites" to get
>>> involved.
>>> So, my question is, if Apache is about "Community over code", why are we
>>> putting up barriers to getting the code if that is also creating barriers
>>> to
>>> building the community?   If the code is a proper release (legally OK,
>>> etc...), making it hard to use/get hinders the building of the community.
>>> Do we like projects taking 2 years to graduate or would we prefer that
>>> time
>>> to be shorter?
>>> So, to answer your question:  yes, I think the incubator is important.
>>> It
>>> does legal vetting, but it also makes sure the communities are acting
>>> proper, learning apache ways, etc....   But the incubator should HELP the
>>> communities grow, not hinder it.
>>> Dan
>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> dims
>>>> --
>>>> Davanum Srinivas ::
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> --
>> Davanum Srinivas ::
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---
> Daniel Kulp
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Davanum Srinivas ::

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

View raw message