On 12/18/2011 7:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2011, at 3:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> NOBODY suggested that this proposed subproject go into trunk. > > I must have been reading a different thread that you when > the issue of having these as "subprojects" or "normal modules" > was discussed and Igor and Dan (at least) indicated the desire > for them being normal modules (since sub-modules have a tendency > to be ignored)... No wait, you had to have been reading that because > you rightly reminded people that large code donations normally > go thru the Incubator.
Ahhh, no but wait, that chatter on a private list (your fault for disclosure, not mine) did not happen. Technical discussions that occur on the private list are void. Now I see why you and perhaps even Graham are confused, and to an outside observer, off-base. I see where there were private concerns expressed about acceptance of sub-project code. The fact that I disagreed with those comments, but published my concerns on the public list, mean that effectively this is a one sided discussion so far. Those concerns could be valid, but don't represent consensus, and until discussion on dev@ happens, they aren't even concerns. IMHO it is up to any subproject champion to promote their code for consideration in trunk if that's where they believe it should end up, once they demonstrate a community around the code. That means they have multiple committers. Do we really believe this code is more deserving of a fast track to trunk than mod_fcgid? At this time these are simply nothing more than a code dump, and that's not acceptable for mainline trunk. With five or fewer pmc supporters of this code out of some 70 PMC members, success doesn't seem to be written in stone just yet.
