On 12/03/2015 17:53, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
<[email protected]> wrote:
... I am quite certain, most Incubator members would accept a project to
have a "vibrant community", if the project could show, for example,...
Note that we don't care about the state of the community when entering
the incubator, that's an exit criteria. Not even "vibrant" for exit,
just a community that is open to including new people and knows how to
do that as an Apache project.
Agreed. And personally, I prefer the smaller “enter” community compared to
the piling on of bunches of people that may or may not contribute that I’ve
seen on a bunch of projects. I’d greatly prefer seeing the community
start small and “grow” during incubation.
Agreed. Even though I think Groovy is IMHO special. It's a 12 years old
project, which have seen lots of contributors. Some contributed a lot in
the past, some contribute a lot now and even some always contributed.I
have no doubt more committers will come, and more people will contribute.
I understand why we need to go through the incubation phase, but there
are things like this which bother me. I think Apache and Groovy worked
more or less the same way in the way we accept new committers:
contribute on a regular basis, with our quality standards and you're
good to go. Not so many candidates but I can already see some, but in
any case, I think meritocracy is very important. So I see no point in
wanting to reach a target number of committers. Having a large number of
quality contributions, more contributors is IMHO more important than
people having write access to the repo.
And as seeing a language like Groovy "grow" during incubation, it all
depends how long we will stay in incubating phase. I just recently
realized for example that we would have to version with -incubating. For
our community, for our users (and for me), it is very strange to have a
12 yo project suddenly having version with -incubating. For example
we're about to release 2.4.2, and then we would have 2.4.3-incubating. I
don't like it at all because it sounds like "not ready". So the shorter
the incubation phase, the better. And if there are arbitrary objectives
like "let's reach X committers", I don't really see the point.
Understanding the Apache Way is important, adapting the release process
is important, making sure that we respect the community is very
important. The number of committers is not.
--
Cédric Champeau
Groovy language developer
http://twitter.com/CedricChampeau
http://melix.github.io/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
