Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I'm going to shameless steal an idea from Andy Oliver. Amended with #4 :
1) Anyone with a contribution that would belong in SVN can be
considered for commit status by the PMC (PPMC while in incubation).
This contribution can be anything - new code, a patch to existing code,
documentation, a change to the website, testing code or other
resources, etc. (Hopefully this gets people interested in harvesting
good docs from the WIKI, as that's worth commit status IMO)
I would like to offer this:
build.xml:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- Define reference to file containing common targets -->
<project name="harmony" default="main" basedir="." >
<target name="main" description="build all source">
<echo>Harmony build</echo>
</target>
</project>
------------
build.sh
#!/bin/sh
ant $*
build.bat
@echo off
REM convenience bat file to build with
REM ATTENTION: Set ANT_HOME to the root directory of ANT distribution
setlocal
PATH=%ANT_HOME%\bin;%PATH%
ant %*
endlocal
------------
Once given commit access I'll begin adding functionality to build java
and c targets and launch make files, etc. (I'm mostly ambivilent so
long as dumb people can run it and get out binaries)
Qualifications:
I read books on compiler theory in my spare time and get GCC to output
asm to see all the cool native codes that come out (god PPC is so much
cooler than Intel). I also know couple things about coding in a hot
legal environment and how to be appropriately paranoid while still
moving forward.
2) If offered commit status by the PMC and accepted by the individual,
we will get an ACQ from the individual along with an ICLA if not
already on file with the ASF secretary. I'd ask that individuals wait
to do an ACQ until offered, as the ACQ will be evolving over time as we
learn, and I'd like to ask that a new committer have the current
version on file as of the date of them being added as a commmitter.
My CLA is already on file. I'm willing to sign whatever.
3) The individual would be given free reign in the area to which they
contributed, and trusted to engage with the relevant part of the
community for other areas of our codebase/resourcebase.
I am completely untainted because I have made a conscious effort to
never read Sun's source because I always intended to do something like this.
4) A committer will lose commit status after 4 months of inactivity.
In order to regain commit status, that person must begin participating
by offering a patch, new code, etc :)
Note that this means voting rights too. This should be automated with a
demon process that runs once a month and reaps dead people.... No
whining, you can't argue with CVS^M^M^MSVN's commit logging.
-andy
On Sep 20, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Adding committers to a project is a problem every project faces, and
there are quite a large number of ways to do it. I've been too
worried about legal issues (and they pop up often) lately, and this
is a good subject for us to resolve now.
We must
* have a visible process to ensure fairness
* a low barrier to entry to get people helping
* a rigid transparent process to ensure safety of the codebase in
terms of IP provenance
* a cultural standard through which people work on things that they
have demonstrated competence to the rest of the community.
For the last point, except for keeping people away from parts of the
subversion repository to which they have had prior exposure they
can't get resolved, we want to have one kind of committer. However,
it's clear that we all have different levels of talent in different
areas of technology. So a nice way to work - I think - is that
committers are added for work in a specific area on a trust basis,
and if they want to work in other areas, they engage with others
already working there and get informal approval to commit at will.
IOW, don't just go rummaging through code in which you have no
experience, but work with those that are. This is something that
I've heard work well in projects like Subversion, and we're trying it
in Geronimo to recognize that the barrier to entry varies by person
and technology they are interested in working on.
So I'd like to keep it really simple :
1) Anyone with a contribution that would belong in SVN can be
considered for commit status by the PMC (PPMC while in incubation).
This contribution can be anything - new code, a patch to existing
code, documentation, a change to the website, testing code or other
resources, etc. (Hopefully this gets people interested in harvesting
good docs from the WIKI, as that's worth commit status IMO)
2) If offered commit status by the PMC and accepted by the
individual, we will get an ACQ from the individual along with an ICLA
if not already on file with the ASF secretary. I'd ask that
individuals wait to do an ACQ until offered, as the ACQ will be
evolving over time as we learn, and I'd like to ask that a new
committer have the current version on file as of the date of them
being added as a commmitter.
3) The individual would be given free reign in the area to which they
contributed, and trusted to engage with the relevant part of the
community for other areas of our codebase/resourcebase.
Comments? If people agree to this, I'd like to add this to our
website as part of the project policy.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Andrew C. Oliver
SuperLink Software, Inc.
Java to Excel using POI
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/services/poi
Commercial support including features added/implemented, bugs fixed.
