Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Mark Murphy wrote: Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 17:55:51 +0200 From: Mark Murphy To: general@attic.apache.org Subject: Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic I don't know why you are trying so hard to keep XMLBeans dead. XMLBeans has been revived by the POI PMC, not just for benefit of POI, but for whomever needs updates. The updates benefit everyone, but keeping it in the attic makes it look dead. This will be confusing to everyone who wants to use it. There should be no website that says XMLBeans is retired. That will cause confusion, and makes it look like ASF's left hand doesn't know what he right hand is doing. I see no difference functionally between XMLBeans being revived and the codebase being adopted. And there should be no difference to the Jira or the website. This is being made far too difficult with no benefit to Apache, but with serious negative repercussions to the community. I agree ; what has actually happened is that project XMLbeans moved from : pmc XMLbeans ; state : active via : pmc Attic; state : retired to : pmc Poi ; state : active The fact that project XMLbeans was, for a while, "retired" is just an not-too-important, historic fact. For the future : if/when a PMC wants to take over an atticked codebase, a board resolution is required (in my view ; this is still being discussed), simply because a board resolution tasked Attic with management of the codebase, and only another board resolution can undo that. The point is that in the XMLbeans case, Poi wanted more than just the codebase ; it wanted everything ; fine. Since the board has to pass a resolution for the codebase-ownership, it might as well approve the revival of the /project/ (and all resources associated with it), and task the TO-PMC with managing the revived project. Apart from the (hopefully coming soon) board resolution, this was effectively done ; and everybody is happy, I think. I think that a PMC can't just take over just the codebase (without the responsibilities that come with running a project). They can fork, but the official codebase remains frozen ; this is just my opinion ; it is unexplored teritory. Regards, Henk Penning In my mind step d) above is just wrong. Here is why. If I am trying to use FROM, and looking for information on it, I will likely find FROM.apache.org. Which will tell me it is dead, but maybe I will find another site under TO.apache.org that looks almost entirely the same except it claims to be alive. Now we have competing websites, with no benefit, only confusion. I don see why that would be put forth as a good idea. F) is a bad idea because there is no continuity in the Maven repository, and requires massive refactoring for anyone who uses FROM. I still don't understand the need to differentiate modules from the original. We don't rename modules for anything else when the PMC changes. Just pretend the PMC changed for XMLBeans, and it is revived. On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:43 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: Hi Attic team, I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to clarify this and here looks like the best place. IIUC the first occurence that just happened is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169 I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion between "project" and "codebase". IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible helps simplify and clarify what's happening. So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting codebases which are currently in the Attic. 1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which means that the Apache Project ceases to exist. 2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic. 3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it feels easy to handle using existing processes. 4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169 If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative) rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it. a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's not been adopted by a different PMC so far b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs c) For this to happen, a
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
I don't know why you are trying so hard to keep XMLBeans dead. XMLBeans has been revived by the POI PMC, not just for benefit of POI, but for whomever needs updates. The updates benefit everyone, but keeping it in the attic makes it look dead. This will be confusing to everyone who wants to use it. There should be no website that says XMLBeans is retired. That will cause confusion, and makes it look like ASF's left hand doesn't know what he right hand is doing. I see no difference functionally between XMLBeans being revived and the codebase being adopted. And there should be no difference to the Jira or the website. This is being made far too difficult with no benefit to Apache, but with serious negative repercussions to the community. In my mind step d) above is just wrong. Here is why. If I am trying to use FROM, and looking for information on it, I will likely find FROM.apache.org. Which will tell me it is dead, but maybe I will find another site under TO.apache.org that looks almost entirely the same except it claims to be alive. Now we have competing websites, with no benefit, only confusion. I don see why that would be put forth as a good idea. F) is a bad idea because there is no continuity in the Maven repository, and requires massive refactoring for anyone who uses FROM. I still don't understand the need to differentiate modules from the original. We don't rename modules for anything else when the PMC changes. Just pretend the PMC changed for XMLBeans, and it is revived. On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:43 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi Attic team, > > I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's > Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to > clarify this and here looks like the best place. > > IIUC the first occurence that just happened is > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169 > > I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might > have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion > between "project" and "codebase". > > IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the > project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible > helps simplify and clarify what's happening. > > So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting > codebases which are currently in the Attic. > > 1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which > means that the Apache Project ceases to exist. > > 2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in > the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to > provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic. > > 3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by > recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for > top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it > feels easy to handle using existing processes. > > 4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active > again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169 > > If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative) > rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project > FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it. > > a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's > not been adopted by a different PMC so far > > b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs > > c) For this to happen, a positive vote of the Attic PMC is sufficient, > on this list, backed by a JIRA ticket to describe the details and > actions > > d) When that happens, the FROM website is updated to indicate that TO > adopted the code, saying something like "The TO PMC has now adopted > the FROM codebase", indicating exactly which part(s) of the codebase > have been adopted. No other change is made to that website, it remains > frozen apart from that note. TO can copy the website content under > their own to evolve it, but the original FROM.apache.org domain > content must stay as it was when FROM moved to the Attic. > > e) The Attic website is updated with that same information > > f) TO can release the FROM modules that it adopted, using names like > TOO-FROM-module-V1.2.3 to differentiate those artifacts from the older > ones that FROM released - adding the TOO prefix to their names, both > for release archives and things like Java jars, etc. > > g) Java package names etc. can remain as they were, for convenience > > How does this sound? > > Maybe this is how ATTIC-169 has been handled, though the note at > http://attic.apache.org/ saying that XMLBeans was "revived" can be > understood as the project getting back to life which is not the case > IMO - it's only the codebase that's been adopted. > > Also, I don't see an Attic mention at http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ and > I think that's not good as per d) above. > > -Bertrand >
Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
Hi Attic team, I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to clarify this and here looks like the best place. IIUC the first occurence that just happened is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169 I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion between "project" and "codebase". IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible helps simplify and clarify what's happening. So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting codebases which are currently in the Attic. 1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which means that the Apache Project ceases to exist. 2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic. 3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it feels easy to handle using existing processes. 4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169 If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative) rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it. a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's not been adopted by a different PMC so far b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs c) For this to happen, a positive vote of the Attic PMC is sufficient, on this list, backed by a JIRA ticket to describe the details and actions d) When that happens, the FROM website is updated to indicate that TO adopted the code, saying something like "The TO PMC has now adopted the FROM codebase", indicating exactly which part(s) of the codebase have been adopted. No other change is made to that website, it remains frozen apart from that note. TO can copy the website content under their own to evolve it, but the original FROM.apache.org domain content must stay as it was when FROM moved to the Attic. e) The Attic website is updated with that same information f) TO can release the FROM modules that it adopted, using names like TOO-FROM-module-V1.2.3 to differentiate those artifacts from the older ones that FROM released - adding the TOO prefix to their names, both for release archives and things like Java jars, etc. g) Java package names etc. can remain as they were, for convenience How does this sound? Maybe this is how ATTIC-169 has been handled, though the note at http://attic.apache.org/ saying that XMLBeans was "revived" can be understood as the project getting back to life which is not the case IMO - it's only the codebase that's been adopted. Also, I don't see an Attic mention at http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ and I think that's not good as per d) above. -Bertrand
