Following up on what David sent out yesterday, I think we're all on board with having a single committers pool based upon mutual trust and respect.
However, dropping parts of the code feels counterproductive to me, as I think it might put up a perceived barrier to collaboration with the Thrift project. Alternate language bindings were one of the main things we were really hoping to see come from the open source community, and we'd like to make sure this continues to be a really approachable thing. We wouldn't want developers to feel like their changes to Thrift won't be accepted without an up front investment of time building reputation in the Thrift community. I think reverting and reapplying these changes creates another risk. Developers would have incentive to keep some language-specific changes to themselves and not share them, simply because it would be more efficient, not because they are philosophically opposed to open source or sharing their changes at all. And to be quite frank, it feels very counterproductive to me to remove code from the project with full a priori intention of putting it back in. We'd rather focus on keeping development open and moving forwards. Removing people's code from the project could send an insulting and negative message. Cheers, Mark -----Original Message----- From: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:39 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Thrift Perhaps in the interest of code audit (which needs to be done) and community building, the code parts of the missing committers should be removed from the code drop prior to incubation start, and be re-introduced inside the incubating podling by providing patches through bugzilla? Martijn On 1/30/08, David Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If there are people who have already proven their *merit* on the > > project that are not included on the initial list of committers then > > I think they should be. > > > > In reality, many parts of the Thrift code base are already > > entirely > owned by non-Facebook entities. The Cocoa, C#, Perl, and > > Smalltalk > implementations for Thrift were all developed entirely > > outside of > Facebook, and although Facebook still maintains the > > trunk, we defer > review of all these patches to the developers > > working on those > libraries. > > > > So are these people on the initial list of committers? > > Perl was contributed by Jake Luciani, who is a committer, but the > developers of the Cocoa, C#, and Smalltalk bindings are not. These > bindings were submitted as a set of a few patches (or in some cases, > even a single large patch), and added to the tree without extensive > review because, quite frankly, no committers were qualified to review > them. Because, as far as we know, the original contributors are the > only users of these bindings, we've just been blindly committing any > changes they make, so it would make sense for them to have commit > access to their parts of the project. However, they have not been > active enough in the Thrift community to warrant the trust that comes > with full commit access. > > I would say that the requirements for a language-binding contributor > to become a committer would be some amount of activity on the mailing > list and either a significant review of the binding by a qualified > committer or a significant project using the binding. > > --David > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
