On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:12, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > On 2010-08-11, Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> The real point though is not size - its *activity*. > > [absolutely correct observation of low activity snipped] > >> My concern is if RAT goes TLP then it may be a small step away from >> not being able to get 3 PMC votes. > > I understand that and share the concern to some degree. > > RAT has probably never been the primary project for any of its > contributors. Most of us jumped in to scratch specific itches and other > than that RAT is a side project somewhere down the list of projects we > contribute to regularly. Pretty far down. > > That being said, we are aware of the problem and have tried to address > that by adding four more committers last December, that doesn't seem to > have been enough. > > One reason probably is that RAT does what it is supposed to do well > enough for most of us - the feedback of people who said RAT was so > important to them that it should become a TLP indicates it is good > enough for most other people as well. In a way RAT has already been > mature and in maintenance mode when it entered incubation. > > So yes, development activity is low. > > OTOH patches get applied and releases are made if there is anything to > fix. I'm sure we could have gotten more people to vote if it had been > necessary on the last release, it just wasn't necessary so people > preferred to work on other things rather than checking releases.
Right. it is being properly managed. Just like the Apache Tcl TLP. And Apache Excalibur. And Apache Perl. ... could probably find a few more low-activity TLPs, but I believe you see my point. It isn't about activity either. It is about whether you have eyeballs on the community and the codebase. Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
