On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Garrett Rooney wrote: > Henri Yandell wrote: > > > 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.
Even with separate roll-outs, I doubt it'll ever reach a point where httpd is not the de-facto chief consumer for httpd, but I don't want it to be the de-jure chief consumer. > 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. I agree. > > 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. I agree :) Hen
