On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Jonathan. I’m starting to get a clearer idea of what’s > going on here. Do you think it was a walled garden in terms of > making reviews for incoming driver patches when you did have > them in the tree? Not exactly sure what you mean, but we did see our responsibility in terms of maintaining our project extend to reviewing patches for drivers while they were in tree. > What you are talking about in the first paragraph > is precisely the reason that your community expands and that you > create new PMC members and committers as they contribute things. > In principle I agree, but when you have six or seven or more parts of the tree whose committers' expertise does not overlap, I think it really does make sense for these to be organized as separate projects. Furthermore, it sounds like you are saying for Java and Python > these weren’t “fly by” contributions and more work has gone on > in those drivers than e.g., compared to Clojure, C++, etc. > That was the case five years ago, and would probably still be the case if we had kept drivers in tree. Making them their own projects has resulted in more and higher quality drivers overall. I note that among similar Apache projects, - CouchDB drivers are not maintained in-tree <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/CouchDB+clients> - HBase maintains only a Java driver in-tree - Accumulo maintains only a Java driver in-tree Put another way, I see four projects that have all more or less independently concluded that trying to maintain a lot of drivers as part of a single Apache project is not a good way to organize things. -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
