On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 04:25:00PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:55:35PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote: <Snip> > > I've decided to host the project elsewhere. It would be extremely > > frustrating to require you, the ASF, to review code I'm patching > > to code I initially wrote, given that I know that code better than > > anyone. Moreover, I would have no review privileges for code being > > committed to e-k, which seems like very irresponsible code management. > > As Jeff indicated, we had hoped that you would want to work *with* us on > moving E-K forward. Your participation on the APR development list, > reviewing of commits, suggesting new directions, and providing patches to > improve the system are/were quite welcome. > > Your comment about "host the project elsewhere" is interesting. We never > viewed this as a way for you to host code at the ASF. Instead, this was > about two things: > > 1) a donation of code from a company (Covalent) > 2) providing an individual (Jon Travis) with commit access to apr-util
#1 is correct. #2 is not -- rather it was about Jon Travis having maintainer privileges to wherever it ended up (not necessarily apr-util). I've repeatedly stated that moving stuff to a different project was fine. Read over the emails -- it's all there in whatever colors your mail reader renders it.. ;-) > The two are separable items with different issues and requirements. > > > As originally stated, I would be the initial maintainer of the code. > > Since this is not the case, it seems that the ASF has accepted part > > of the deal, and discarded the rest. > > Again, the two issues are separate. It is unfortunate that the ASF did not > communicate this critical piece of information to you, though. A lot of > headache may have been avoided if we simply said, "A code donation does not > imply commit access. Each will be evaluated on their own merits." That's fine -- but in this case I said that I would be the initial maintainer. If you didn't want the one, you shouldn't have taken the other. > > I'd ask that you not include e-k, since we haven't come to a satisfactory > > conclusion. > > We have already executed the paperwork with Covalent for the software grant. This I know -- I filled it all out.. ;-) > I don't have a particular read on what the PMC is going to choose to do with > the code -- whether it will go into apr-util/html/, or whether will be > skipped. We do have the choice, but I'm not sure which will be chosen. > You certainly do, and I hope you act responsibly in your decision. -- Jon
