It would appear to me to be an evolution from the implicit nature of this conversation thus far, but whatever, I couldn't care less. I just find talking about it without talking about it in poor taste.
About the fork, though, I'm interested. I'm interested in why it's maintained and how it differs. I'm interested because I intend to fork it myself to fix things which would break others which I know won't change upstream (site and release stuff). Perhaps someone already fixed what I consider broken and others, perhaps, do not consider broken. Email me privately if need be. If the fork is just a branch (or set thereof), and not promoted as a fork (in a social sense), then is there really any harm? Is it being viewed as a loss of potential work done? Open source is open for a reason. Fred. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 July 2013 23:15, Fred Cooke <fred.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So much in-crowd politics and unspoken but apparently well-known > material. > > > > Who is the person, who if they were to come across this, would obviously > > know they were being talked about anyway? > > > > I would rather we not focus on specific people. This should be a question > that is isolated from any specific person. Often times when there is a > specific person in mind people can have biases both for that person or > against that person which can colour their views of the question at hand. > > > > > > Where is the, almost certainly short lived, fork of Maven located? A > quick > > search failed to reveal this. > > > > There is at least one Maven Committer who has been maintaining a fork of > Maven for perhaps the greater part of a year. There is nothing wrong with > committers maintaining their own private forks. If they intend on bringing > the work back to the Maven project, then the best way to achieve that is in > smaller parts and not as one big code drop at the end. > > The question is whether the community sees this as against the spirit of > what it means to be part of the PMC. > > We could pick one specific individual as a "test case" but I don't think > that would be productive. Any such individual is likely to bring a lot of > other baggage with them and could therefore confuse the results of such a > "test case" > > > > Such material is best on the table. > > > > I hope we don't have to devolve to specifics about specific individuals. > > > > > > Fred. > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Stephen Connolly < > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 25 July 2013 22:34, Nigel Magnay <nigel.mag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should the PMC encourage people experimenting on new improvements > to > > > > Maven > > > > > to do that work at the ASF? And if so, should they then practice > what > > > > they > > > > > preach, and ensure that any experiments with Maven take place on > the > > > ASF > > > > > SCM servers (at least once such experiments become semi-serious or > > > > progress > > > > > enough not to cause egg-on-face syndrome)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That feels to me like swimming entirely against the tide, and a > recipe > > > for > > > > irrelevance. > > > > > > > > Who, in 2013, *cares* about Apache's SCM? OSS, for just about > everyone > > I > > > > speak to these days runs thus: > > > > > > > > 1) Is it on Github? > > > > 2) If no, fork onto GIthub. > > > > > > > > ASF might indeed value "community over code", but that doesn't seem > to > > > be a > > > > winning strategy any longer, and those changes seem to be trying to > > > > double-down on that strategy. > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing preventing the project from being mirrored onto > GitHub, > > > and in fact the Maven project is mirrored there. > > > > > > We *legally* need to have the code end up back at ASF if we are to > > release > > > it under the legal protections that the ASF provides. > > > > > > We *legally* are supposed to review aspects of the provenance of the > code > > > that gets released. The more code development that takes place on non > ASF > > > servers, the less we can be sure of. > > > > > > By having commits and forks at ASF, then each non-ASF set of commits > will > > > be smaller and more likely from a single author which means less work > for > > > reviewing. > > > > > > Code dumps from a long running fork are thus incompatible with > releasing > > > from the ASF > > > > > > If you are a YOLO developer, perhaps you don't care about the legal > > > stuff... your prerogative... I think it is a mistake though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Maven should extricate itself from the ASF. Maybe that's what > > > long > > > > standing forks will do. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps. Perhaps not. This is a different question... and one that also > > > begs an answer to a different question: what value do users of Maven > > place > > > on the legal protections that being released from the ASF provide. > There > > is > > > also the question of whether the developers value the legal > protections. > > > > > > But at the end of they day there seems to be quite a large cohort of > OSS > > > developers who take a YOLO attitude towards legal stuff[1]... who knows > > > what experiences they will encounter in the next few years and whether > > they > > > will change their opinions in the light of their experiences and > whether > > > they will then see relevance in the ASF. > > > > > > [1]: There are lots of projects on GitHub that don't even bother to > have > > a > > > license > > > > > >
