Le 22/04/15 12:28, Steve Moyer a écrit : > I think we've spent enough time rehashing the past ...
Absolutely. > let me just say > that I think things would have gone a lot differently if there'd been an > easy way to provide a repository branch for us to check code into. Sadly, this is not the way it works at The ASF. Let me tell you though that it would have been a matter of two weeks to proceed with the original injection of the code 2 years ago. > On > the other hand, I can certainly understand why you don't want to change > your infrastructure every time someone pops into the IRC channel - SVN > doesn't make it so easy to limit permissions and you probably see a > hundred people a month come by then disappear (like I seemed to do). We now have git, too, and that makes it extra easy to inject code, keeping the full history. But it's also a matter of voting in the new committer. We are pretty liberal about this, it's just a vote. Serioulsy, this is really a limited task, with a few paperwork : - we vote the proposal and the committer(s) - if the vote is positive, then the new committer(s) are required to fill a ICLA or a CCLA (if they are working for a company) - once the I/CCLA has been received and registred, the account is requested - when the account is created, we assign the correct rights and we are done. Since 2013, the process is even faster, and I would say that it can be done in 3 to 5 days, max. > > I'm also not debating the use of the work forked ... just pointing out > that Kiran and I decided *together* our approaches, while both valid > ways to tackle the problem, were not compatible enough to live in one > project. There was a reason we went looking for an OSS Java-based SCIM > project ... we can chat on IRC in a couple hours (once I'm in the office). I think that it would be a good idea to expose the difference of both approaches. I can understand you have a slightly divergence from the spec, and that it makes it a different beast, while Kiran deicded to stick to the specs (AFAIU), but pease, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I'm quite sure that Kiran - or any one of us ! - would be pleased to see a better version of what we are working on to replace what we are currently coding : I do think that pride should never be a criterium when it comes to code. > > Assuming Shawn (my boss) still wants to push forward with Apache > Directory, there is the issue of having two SCIM implementations in one > project ... I guess the value propositions of each would need to be > clearly stated? Absolutely. For those of us (and that includes me) who are not knees deep into SCIM, that would be extremely helpful. > I'd like to see wide-spread SCIM adoption, so we > certainly don't want to spread any confusion. +1 Thanks Steve !
