incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Date Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:56:13 GMT

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Torsten Curdt <> wrote:

> From: Torsten Curdt <>
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To:
> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 5:32 AM
> Well, the point is: we are 
> talking about small libraries.
> Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2
> developers.
> They want to bring this code to Commons. What to do? IP
> clearance is
> one thing. But what about the 2 developers? Just make them
> committers
> while they have no clue about Apache? Doesn't sound like a
> good idea.
> Just accepting their code and make them send patches until
> we feel
> they are ready? Feels not appropriate since they are the
> authors of
> the code. On the other hand going through the "normal"
> incubator is a
> bit over the top for a project that is so small that it is
> not
> targeting to become it's own project. Building a community
> is not
> really that applicable in this case. It's rather about
> integrating it
> into an existing community.

Thanks Torsten--I think you've pointed out the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis here:

 * IP clearance means reducing the original authors of codebase X to contributor status. 
It could be argued that this is a way of teaching them that within the context of the ASF,
the direction of "their" code will be determined by the community.  More likely, however,
they will simply opt to take their ball and go home.  Surely there are better ways to teach
the "Apache way."

 * "full" Incubation sets a small component up for failure to graduate due to not gaining
a community large or diverse enough to satisfy Incubator graduation requirements, when, were
the same code to begin life in the Commons sandbox, originated by ANY existing ASF committer,
it would be subject to somewhat less stringent graduation (to Commons "proper") requirements.

The other problem with full incubation, inordinate effort to set up _n_ relatively tiny podlings,
really affects infrastructure more than it affects Commons.

The current state of affairs makes it highly impractical for any codebase that includes IP
from a non-ASF-committer to enter Apache Commons.  What we are asking for could be alternately
seen as the Incubator's blessing to establish a "decontamination chamber" much like our sandbox
but where community members can commit prior to their component being accepted into Commons
"proper" and their consequentially becoming "true" ASF committers.  Note that some of my wording
reflects a perception on my part that there is a difference between a podling committer and
a committer to some TLP (or TLP subproject).  If that is not the case, I'd be interested to
know that, but I don't believe it affects the overall argument here either way.  We need an
officially sanctioned concept for "Commons podling committer."

> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
> > <>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> -1 (vote, not veto).

Finally, I'm apparently not familiar enough with incubator procedures to understand "when
a -1 is not a veto."  Can anyone provide any more info on that?  :)




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

View raw message