incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Hyde <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator
Date Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:23:54 GMT
I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a split personality:
The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2]
is (to my eyes at least) difficult to decipher.

In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master’” and
"# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are typical. Very few descriptive comments
or references to IGNITE-xxx cases that could provide further explanation. Those are indications
to me that development is been driven by off-list meetings.

If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers, I think they need
to make their commits more transparent to match the excellent transparency they have achieved
on their mailing list.



On Jul 22, 2015, at 12:14 AM, Branko Čibej <> wrote:

> On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
>> this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that
>> the 37% are actually active, that is).
> Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
> the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.
> I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
> "outside", and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
> community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
> wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
> graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
> rather than the other way around.
> I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an "open and diverse
> community" should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
> months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
> incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
> using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
> effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.
> -- Brane
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message