Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
Huh! Is this not very self centered? Surely we should be asking what is best for ours customers/users.
The committers are the chief consumers :) At least, Apache Commons seems to have the same concepts as Jakarta Commons in that respect, that ASF projects are the chief consumers with external consumers being a major bonus point.
ie) APR exists for ASF C projects, and not for C in general.
Us Subversion developers would probably dissagree with you there... APR is used in a number of non-ASF projects.
Yep, but subversion developers are not ASF developers [at least not wearing their ASF developer hats]. The real question here is:
I don't see how that's relevant. I'm just pointing out that the APR developers (at least from what I've seen) do not feel that APR exists 'for ASF C projects'. You seem to be implying that APR exists just for ASF projects, and in my experience that simply is not the case. In fact most of the APR developers seem to be pushing to reduce the tight coupling between httpd and APR by moving toward rolling separate releases for APR etc.
Jakarta Commons exists for Jakarta [in the charter]. XML Commons for XML [I think]. Does ASF Commons exist for ASF, or is it a TLP aiming at contributors. If an ASF project donates some code to ASF Commons, and the people in the ASF Commons community make a decision based on user feedback, is the original ASF project able to veto these, or have a larger say?
I have very little pull here (being only a minor contributor to any ASF project at all), but it seems like ASF Commons should be a separate TLP aiming to product reusable code for any and all who wish to use it. Making some artificial distinction that ASF projects somehow get more pull with regard to ASF Commons projects seems wrong to me.
This has happened in Jakarta Commons. Code is donated, the original donaters are not actively monitoring the code [and not a part of the community therefore]. When simple changes are made that break their API, they feel naturally aggrieved. The basic philosophy of the Commons is what drives the settlement here. ASF or the People.
If you're not actively involved in the project in question, it doesn't seem like being afiliated with the ASF should give you some sort of advantage here. An ASF project that uses code that lives in the ASF Commons is just another consumer, and should (IMO) have their opinions treated the same as any other.
-garrett
