Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

If there have been over 200 contributors to the project, I would expect to
see an effort to pull some of them in shortly after entering incubation...
Assuming they can demonstrate merrit.

An initial committer list of 5 for such a big project with a large and
diverse history of contributions would ring alarm bells to me only if it
remained that small when seeking to become a TLP

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
> proposal:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
> for wide discussion before conducting and IPMC
> vote on it. In order to engage as much potential stakeholders
> as possible we will be soliciting input on {dev,users}@groovy.codehaus.org
> 
> The main discussion, however, is going to happen on this thread.
>
> The copy of the proposal is included bellow, but please note
> that any required changes would be reflected on the wiki.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman (Groovy proposal champion and a nominated mentor).
>
> == Abstract ==
> Groovy is an object-oriented programming language for the Java
> platform. It is a primarily dynamic language with features similar to
> those of Python, Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. Groovy, if accepted by
> Incubator, will be a first major programming language developed under
> the umbrella of Apache Software Foundation.
>
> == Proposal ==
> Groovy is a programming language for the Java platform. It is a
> primarily dynamic language with features similar to those of Python,
> Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. It also has optional static type checking
> and static compilation facilities. It can be used as a scripting
> language for the Java Platform or to write complete applications, is
> compiled to Java Virtual Machine (JVM) bytecode, and interoperates
> with other Java code and libraries. Groovy uses a Java-like
> curly-bracket syntax. Most Java code is also syntactically valid
> Groovy, although semantics may be different. Groovy has long been
> developed under an Apache License v2.0 under an open governance
> community management process. However, so far Groovy has been a
> project mostly sponsored by a single company. This proposal aims at
> bringing Groovy community under the umbrella of the Apache Software
> Foundation.
>
> It must be explicitly noted, that a few sister projects such as Groovy
> Eclipse and others (some of them hosted under
> https://github.com/groovy and listed at
> http://groovy-lang.org/ecosystem.html) are not covered by this
> proposal. It is possible that these other projects will be joining ASF
> either independently or as sub-projects of Apache Groovy in the
> future. For now, we are only proposing groovy-core.
>
> == Background ==
> Groovy 1.0 was released on January 2, 2007, and Groovy 2.0 in July,
> 2012. Groovy 2.5 is planned for release in 2015. Groovy 3.0 is planned
> for release in 2016, with support for a new Meta Object Protocol.
> Since version 2, Groovy can also be compiled statically, offering type
> inference and performance very close to that of Java. Groovy 2.4 will
> be the last major release under Pivotal Software's sponsorship, which
> is scheduled to end on March 31, 2015.
>
> == Rationale ==
> Groovy is a pretty mature language. After 12 years of development, it
> has grown from being primarily a dynamic scripting language on the JVM
> to an optionally statically compiled language allowing the same
> performance level as Java applications. With the release of Groovy
> 2.4, the language targets the largest pool of mobile developers with
> native Android support. Groovy has been integrated in a large number
> of applications, including well known open-source projects like
> Jenkins, Gradle, ElasticSearch, Spring and more.
>
> There are multiple alternative languages on the JVM: Scala, Clojure,
> Ceylon, Kotlin, JRuby, Golo and others but Groovy is the only one
> which has proved to be very easy to integrate with Java in both ways:
> Groovy code using Java code, but also Java code using Groovy code.
> Groovy even provides a joint compiler which allows interdependent Java
> and Groovy classes to compile together. Groovy also supports dynamic
> code generation, that is to say classes at runtime, making it a
> perfect fit for scripting. With a very lightweight and malleable
> syntax, it is also easy to build internal Domain Specific Languages
> (DSLs) which integrate smoothly within applications.
>
> Groovy provides a number of unique features, like builders (Java 8 has
> lambdas but still has syntactic overhead and no notion of delegate),
> AST transformations (compile-time metaprogramming) or type checking
> extensions (which allows the developer to bring the compiler to levels
> of type checking and type inference that go far beyond what other
> languages do). Groovy also provides powerful integration options and
> customizations which set it apart from other languages. Groovy is also
> unique in the way it allows the developer to choose

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Rich Bowen]

The paragraph that begins with "Despite all those advantages ..." 
doesn't seem to contribute anything to the proposal, and might benefit 
from either being cut, or by calling out an action - that is, does this 
mean that you expect to engage more closely with these projects to help 
them do better?


--Rich

On 03/11/2015 02:58 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

Hi!

It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
proposal:
 https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
for wide discussion before conducting and IPMC
vote on it. In order to engage as much potential stakeholders
as possible we will be soliciting input on {dev,users}@groovy.codehaus.org
The main discussion, however, is going to happen on this thread.

The copy of the proposal is included bellow, but please note
that any required changes would be reflected on the wiki.

Thanks,
Roman (Groovy proposal champion and a nominated mentor).

== Abstract ==
Groovy is an object-oriented programming language for the Java
platform. It is a primarily dynamic language with features similar to
those of Python, Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. Groovy, if accepted by
Incubator, will be a first major programming language developed under
the umbrella of Apache Software Foundation.

== Proposal ==
Groovy is a programming language for the Java platform. It is a
primarily dynamic language with features similar to those of Python,
Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. It also has optional static type checking
and static compilation facilities. It can be used as a scripting
language for the Java Platform or to write complete applications, is
compiled to Java Virtual Machine (JVM) bytecode, and interoperates
with other Java code and libraries. Groovy uses a Java-like
curly-bracket syntax. Most Java code is also syntactically valid
Groovy, although semantics may be different. Groovy has long been
developed under an Apache License v2.0 under an open governance
community management process. However, so far Groovy has been a
project mostly sponsored by a single company. This proposal aims at
bringing Groovy community under the umbrella of the Apache Software
Foundation.

It must be explicitly noted, that a few sister projects such as Groovy
Eclipse and others (some of them hosted under
https://github.com/groovy and listed at
http://groovy-lang.org/ecosystem.html) are not covered by this
proposal. It is possible that these other projects will be joining ASF
either independently or as sub-projects of Apache Groovy in the
future. For now, we are only proposing groovy-core.

== Background ==
Groovy 1.0 was released on January 2, 2007, and Groovy 2.0 in July,
2012. Groovy 2.5 is planned for release in 2015. Groovy 3.0 is planned
for release in 2016, with support for a new Meta Object Protocol.
Since version 2, Groovy can also be compiled statically, offering type
inference and performance very close to that of Java. Groovy 2.4 will
be the last major release under Pivotal Software's sponsorship, which
is scheduled to end on March 31, 2015.

== Rationale ==
Groovy is a pretty mature language. After 12 years of development, it
has grown from being primarily a dynamic scripting language on the JVM
to an optionally statically compiled language allowing the same
performance level as Java applications. With the release of Groovy
2.4, the language targets the largest pool of mobile developers with
native Android support. Groovy has been integrated in a large number
of applications, including well known open-source projects like
Jenkins, Gradle, ElasticSearch, Spring and more.

There are multiple alternative languages on the JVM: Scala, Clojure,
Ceylon, Kotlin, JRuby, Golo and others but Groovy is the only one
which has proved to be very easy to integrate with Java in both ways:
Groovy code using Java code, but also Java code using Groovy code.
Groovy even provides a joint compiler which allows interdependent Java
and Groovy classes to compile together. Groovy also supports dynamic
code generation, that is to say classes at runtime, making it a
perfect fit for scripting. With a very lightweight and malleable
syntax, it is also easy to build internal Domain Specific Languages
(DSLs) which integrate smoothly within applications.

Groovy provides a number of unique features, like builders (Java 8 has
lambdas but still has syntactic overhead and no notion of delegate),
AST transformations (compile-time metaprogramming) or type checking
extensions (which allows the developer to bring the compiler to levels
of type checking and type inference that go far beyond what other
languages do). Groovy also provides powerful integration options and
customizations which set it apart from other languages. Groovy is also
unique in the way it allows the developer to choose between various
paradigms without compromise: functional vs object-oriented,
statically compiled vs dynamic, scripting vs applications, etc.

Despite all those advantages, and the fact that Groovy is widely
adopted (4.5 million downloads in

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Cédric Champeau]

A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for the
past 4 years:
https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01&to=2015-03-11&type=c
and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHub
helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos to
complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in GitHub
doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors are
preserved.

While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep knowledge
of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular contributors to
become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
following quality standards, take care of important things like maintaining
backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in the past,
but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons. In the end
I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but meritocracy is
also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.

2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik :

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
> > caught my eye.
> >
> > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
> initial
> > commiters are only 5.
>
> This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
> preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
> at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
> me wonder exactly the same thing.
>
> In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
> position
> the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
>
> That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the best
> way
> to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the project
> and have contributed in the past get invited.
>
> There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
> appreciate Incubator's
> collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
> that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
> past.
> Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Martijn Dashorst]

Great initiative!

Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?

Martijn

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Benedikt Ritter]

Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to happen
on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web UI for
merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors git
repositories from git.apache.org to github.

I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board if
groovy enters incubation.

Benedikt

2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau :

> A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for the
> past 4 years:
>
> https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01&to=2015-03-11&type=c
> and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHub
> helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos to
> complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in GitHub
> doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors are
> preserved.
>
> While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep knowledge
> of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular contributors to
> become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
> following quality standards, take care of important things like maintaining
> backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in the past,
> but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons. In the end
> I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but meritocracy is
> also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
> contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.
>
> 2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik :
>
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
> > > caught my eye.
> > >
> > > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
> > initial
> > > commiters are only 5.
> >
> > This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
> > preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
> > at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
> > me wonder exactly the same thing.
> >
> > In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
> > position
> > the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
> >
> > That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the best
> > way
> > to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the project
> > and have contributed in the past get invited.
> >
> > There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
> > appreciate Incubator's
> > collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
> > that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
> > past.
> > Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
>



-- 
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Cédric Champeau]

2015-03-11 21:24 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter :

> Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to happen
> on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web UI for
> merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors git
> repositories from git.apache.org to github.
>
> Yes, we are aware (and TBH a bit worried about it) of it, but we hope that
it will be minor inconvenience. In particular GitHub has proved to be a
very effective tool to bring new contributors and we fear that having the
Groovy project in the middle of a ton of other projects in the "apache"
organization will reduce the number of PRs we receive, but I guess this is
a price to pay.

I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board if
> groovy enters incubation.
>
> Thanks!

> Benedikt
>
> 2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau :
>
> > A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for
> the
> > past 4 years:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01&to=2015-03-11&type=c
> > and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHub
> > helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos to
> > complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in
> GitHub
> > doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors are
> > preserved.
> >
> > While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep
> knowledge
> > of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular contributors to
> > become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
> > following quality standards, take care of important things like
> maintaining
> > backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in the past,
> > but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons. In the
> end
> > I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but meritocracy is
> > also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
> > contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.
> >
> > 2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik :
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one
> thing
> > > > caught my eye.
> > > >
> > > > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
> > > initial
> > > > commiters are only 5.
> > >
> > > This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
> > > preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because
> looking
> > > at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors
> makes
> > > me wonder exactly the same thing.
> > >
> > > In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
> > > position
> > > the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
> > >
> > > That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the
> best
> > > way
> > > to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the
> project
> > > and have contributed in the past get invited.
> > >
> > > There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
> > > appreciate Incubator's
> > > collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
> > > that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
> > > past.
> > > Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Guillaume Laforge]

Yes Benedikt, we're aware of that.
It's actually been one of the (pain) points we raised when discussing with
our (then-soon-to-be) mentors and champion.
Working with the Github infrastructure was very smooth, very handy and
practical.
But we'll have to get used to this new approach!

Guillaume

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Benedikt Ritter  wrote:

> Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to
> happen on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web UI
> for merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors git
> repositories from git.apache.org to github.
>
> I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board if
> groovy enters incubation.
>
> Benedikt
>
> 2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau :
>
>> A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for
>> the
>> past 4 years:
>>
>> https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01&to=2015-03-11&type=c
>> and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHub
>> helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos to
>> complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in GitHub
>> doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors are
>> preserved.
>>
>> While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep
>> knowledge
>> of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular contributors to
>> become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
>> following quality standards, take care of important things like
>> maintaining
>> backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in the past,
>> but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons. In the
>> end
>> I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but meritocracy is
>> also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
>> contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.
>>
>> 2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik :
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
>> > > Hi.
>> > >
>> > > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
>> > > caught my eye.
>> > >
>> > > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
>> > initial
>> > > commiters are only 5.
>> >
>> > This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
>> > preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
>> > at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors
>> makes
>> > me wonder exactly the same thing.
>> >
>> > In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
>> > position
>> > the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
>> >
>> > That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the
>> best
>> > way
>> > to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the
>> project
>> > and have contributed in the past get invited.
>> >
>> > There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
>> > appreciate Incubator's
>> > collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
>> > that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
>> > past.
>> > Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Roman.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter
>



-- 
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge  / Google+

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Pascal Schumacher]

Am 11.03.2015 um 21:24 schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to 
happen on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web 
UI for merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors 
git repositories from git.apache.org  to github.
Yes, we are aware of that. But as I understand we can still pull the 
changes (from a pull request) to our local repo then merge/cherry-pick 
and push to the ASF repo which will than be mirrored on github, right?


Regards,
Pascal



I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board 
if groovy enters incubation.


Benedikt

2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau >:


A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually
contributed for the
past 4 years:

https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01&to=2015-03-11&type=c
and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors.
GitHub
helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple
typos to
complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution
in GitHub
doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that
authors are
preserved.

While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep
knowledge
of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular
contributors to
become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
following quality standards, take care of important things like
maintaining
backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in
the past,
but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons.
In the end
I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but
meritocracy is
also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.

2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik mailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org>>:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i mailto:j...@apache.org>> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good,
one thing
> > caught my eye.
> >
> > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community
and the
> initial
> > commiters are only 5.
>
> This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
> preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because
looking
> at this:
https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
> me wonder exactly the same thing.
>
> In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it
is and
> position
> the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
>
> That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's
the best
> way
> to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in
the project
> and have contributed in the past get invited.
>
> There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
> appreciate Incubator's
> collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here
given
> that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors
in the
> past.
> Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>




--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/ 
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Benedikt Ritter]

2015-03-11 21:37 GMT+01:00 Pascal Schumacher :

>  Am 11.03.2015 um 21:24 schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
>
> Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to
> happen on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web UI
> for merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors git
> repositories from git.apache.org to github.
>
> Yes, we are aware of that. But as I understand we can still pull the
> changes (from a pull request) to our local repo then merge/cherry-pick and
> push to the ASF repo which will than be mirrored on github, right?
>

Yes, that's possible (and we're doing that at Commons Math), but it's far
from the easy use of the web UI. Good that you're aware of this.

OT: you can read more about GitHub/GitLab and the ASF at [1], if you like.

B.

[1] http://markmail.org/message/puvprtgzutdp2eph


>
> Regards,
> Pascal
>
>
>
>  I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board
> if groovy enters incubation.
>
>  Benedikt
>
> 2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau :
>
>> A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for
>> the
>> past 4 years:
>>
>> https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01&to=2015-03-11&type=c
>> and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHub
>> helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos to
>> complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in GitHub
>> doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors are
>> preserved.
>>
>> While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep
>> knowledge
>> of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular contributors to
>> become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
>> following quality standards, take care of important things like
>> maintaining
>> backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in the past,
>> but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons. In the
>> end
>> I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but meritocracy is
>> also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
>> contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.
>>
>> 2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik :
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
>> > > Hi.
>> > >
>> > > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
>> > > caught my eye.
>> > >
>> > > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
>> > initial
>> > > commiters are only 5.
>> >
>> > This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
>> > preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
>> > at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors
>> makes
>> > me wonder exactly the same thing.
>> >
>> > In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
>> > position
>> > the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
>> >
>> > That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the
>> best
>> > way
>> > to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the
>> project
>> > and have contributed in the past get invited.
>> >
>> > There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
>> > appreciate Incubator's
>> > collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
>> > that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
>> > past.
>> > Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Roman.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>  --
>  http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter
>
>
>


-- 
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 11.03.2015 20:08, schrieb jan i:

The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
initial commiters are only 5.

I am not raising it as a problem, just would like a little explanation.


It is only 5 because we did work mostly with github pull requests. Many 
people just spend a little time to get their things fixed or their 
feature implemented and then become inactive (in terms of code 
contribution) again.


bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[jan i]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i >
> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
> > caught my eye.
> >
> > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
> initial
> > commiters are only 5.
>
> This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
> preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
> at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
> me wonder exactly the same thing.
>
> In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
> position
> the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
>
> That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the best
> way
> to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the project
> and have contributed in the past get invited.
>
> There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
> appreciate Incubator's
> collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
> that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
> past.
> Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.


Just to be sure I am not misunderstood, I will be happy to vote +1 with 5
initial committers.

I was simply (as you) puzzled over what seems to non logical.

rgds
jan i

>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
>
>

-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Cédric Champeau]

Don't worry your question is perfectly legitimate. I don't know if it's
specific to Groovy, but we indeed have a lot of contributors, but not so
many recurrent one that may become committers.

2015-03-11 22:11 GMT+01:00 jan i :

> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
> > > caught my eye.
> > >
> > > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
> > initial
> > > commiters are only 5.
> >
> > This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
> > preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
> > at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
> > me wonder exactly the same thing.
> >
> > In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
> > position
> > the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
> >
> > That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the best
> > way
> > to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the project
> > and have contributed in the past get invited.
> >
> > There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
> > appreciate Incubator's
> > collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
> > that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
> > past.
> > Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
>
>
> Just to be sure I am not misunderstood, I will be happy to vote +1 with 5
> initial committers.
>
> I was simply (as you) puzzled over what seems to non logical.
>
> rgds
> jan i
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[jan i]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Cédric Champeau 
wrote:

> Don't worry your question is perfectly legitimate. I don't know if it's
> specific to Groovy, but we indeed have a lot of contributors, but not so
> many recurrent one that may become committers.


Thanks, please also be aware that a committer does not need to produce
code. We have many project (like e.g. AOO) where people who make
e.g. translations, documentation or tests are committers. Committers are
people who care about contributing to the project over time, independent of
what type they contribute to the project.

rgds
jan i

>
> 2015-03-11 22:11 GMT+01:00 jan i >:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i   >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one
> thing
> > > > caught my eye.
> > > >
> > > > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
> > > initial
> > > > commiters are only 5.
> > >
> > > This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
> > > preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because
> looking
> > > at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors
> makes
> > > me wonder exactly the same thing.
> > >
> > > In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
> > > position
> > > the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
> > >
> > > That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the
> best
> > > way
> > > to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the
> project
> > > and have contributed in the past get invited.
> > >
> > > There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
> > > appreciate Incubator's
> > > collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
> > > that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
> > > past.
> > > Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
> >
> >
> > Just to be sure I am not misunderstood, I will be happy to vote +1 with 5
> > initial committers.
> >
> > I was simply (as you) puzzled over what seems to non logical.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan i
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> > > 
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
> >
>


-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stian Soiland-Reyes]

The github-asf integration is fairly smooth, if not as cool as the big
Merge button. For the requester there is no difference, only the Apache
committer have to do manual steps.

An example email, which we set up to go to dev@:

http://apache-taverna-dev.markmail.org/thread/gq62b33me5mjjkjw

If you just do those commands as in the email, you are done.

Any replies on the mailing list thread as goes back to github (and hence
the submitter) and vice versa - although with the occasional formatting
issue.

The only awkward bit is that you have to use dummy commits to close any
pull requests that you don't want to merge.

Btw, I think the example commands could be improved, --no-ff or something
should force a merge commit (where you can say the "This closes #15" in the
commit message)

It has also been suggested to do a trial of GitLab installation at Apache,
with various feedback.

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201503.mbox/

On 11 Mar 2015 20:42, "Guillaume Laforge"  wrote:

> Yes Benedikt, we're aware of that.
> It's actually been one of the (pain) points we raised when discussing with
> our (then-soon-to-be) mentors and champion.
> Working with the Github infrastructure was very smooth, very handy and
> practical.
> But we'll have to get used to this new approach!
>
> Guillaume
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Benedikt Ritter 
> wrote:
>
> > Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to
> > happen on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web UI
> > for merging PRs for example, because currently the ASF only mirrors git
> > repositories from git.apache.org to github.
> >
> > I'm very excited about this project, and will definitively be on board if
> > groovy enters incubation.
> >
> > Benedikt
> >
> > 2015-03-11 21:11 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau :
> >
> >> A good answer to this is to take a look at who actually contributed for
> >> the
> >> past 4 years:
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors?from=2011-01-01&to=2015-03-11&type=c
> >> and you will see that there are not so many regular contributors. GitHub
> >> helped us a lot recently to have more contributions, from simple typos
> to
> >> complex bug fixes, but one should not forget that a contribution in
> GitHub
> >> doesn't mean that the author is a committer : it's just that authors are
> >> preserved.
> >>
> >> While we have a lot of contributors, only a few of us have a deep
> >> knowledge
> >> of Groovy internals. We will certainly encourage regular contributors to
> >> become committers (we already think of some), as long as those are
> >> following quality standards, take care of important things like
> >> maintaining
> >> backwards compatibility etc... We had more than 5 committers in the
> past,
> >> but lots of them just stopped pushing code, for various reasons. In the
> >> end
> >> I would be the first pleased to see more committers, but meritocracy is
> >> also important. And to be clear, we do not think only about code:
> >> contributions like documentation or tests are also very important.
> >>
> >> 2015-03-11 20:17 GMT+01:00 Roman Shaposhnik :
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
> >> > > Hi.
> >> > >
> >> > > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one
> thing
> >> > > caught my eye.
> >> > >
> >> > > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
> >> > initial
> >> > > commiters are only 5.
> >> >
> >> > This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
> >> > preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because
> looking
> >> > at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors
> >> makes
> >> > me wonder exactly the same thing.
> >> >
> >> > In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and
> >> > position
> >> > the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.
> >> >
> >> > That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the
> >> best
> >> > way
> >> > to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the
> >> project
> >> > and have contributed in the past get invited.
> >> >
> >> > There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
> >> > appreciate Incubator's
> >> > collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
> >> > that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the
> >> > past.
> >> > Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Roman.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> > http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> > http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> > http://github.com/britter
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Groovy Project Manager
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge  / Google+
> 
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Shane Curcuru]

On 3/11/15 4:20 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Great initiative!
> 
> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
> the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?

Good point.  Just from the Apache *policy* side, the ASF must have
trademark rights to a podling's name before the board will approve a
graduation vote.  With such a long history, we would need a clear
statement of some sort from whoever was previously hosting Groovy
software product releases, which would seem to be Pivotal.  Or, the
podling would have to choose a new name that we did have rights to.  8-)

If the PPMC requests it, we can then register the project's name as a
trademark in the US *after* graduation.

If this podling joins the incubator, please coordinate some Groovy PPMC
and Pivotal contacts with trademarks@.  Presuming Pivotal is willing
(and I can't imagine why they wouldn't be), trademarks@ can ensure the
right stuff gets done.

- Shane


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Stephen Connolly
 wrote:
> If there have been over 200 contributors to the project, I would expect to
> see an effort to pull some of them in shortly after entering incubation...
> Assuming they can demonstrate merrit.

If anybody can share 'prior art' in this area it would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
> On 3/11/15 4:20 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> Great initiative!
>>
>> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
>> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
>> the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?
>
> Good point.  Just from the Apache *policy* side, the ASF must have
> trademark rights to a podling's name before the board will approve a
> graduation vote.  With such a long history, we would need a clear
> statement of some sort from whoever was previously hosting Groovy
> software product releases, which would seem to be Pivotal.  Or, the
> podling would have to choose a new name that we did have rights to.  8-)
>
> If the PPMC requests it, we can then register the project's name as a
> trademark in the US *after* graduation.
>
> If this podling joins the incubator, please coordinate some Groovy PPMC
> and Pivotal contacts with trademarks@.  Presuming Pivotal is willing
> (and I can't imagine why they wouldn't be), trademarks@ can ensure the
> right stuff gets done.

Great point! I'm on the hook to coordinate this. Stay tuned.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> The paragraph that begins with "Despite all those advantages ..." doesn't
> seem to contribute anything to the proposal, and might benefit from either
> being cut, or by calling out an action - that is, does this mean that you
> expect to engage more closely with these projects to help them do better?

Yes, the idea is that through the process of osmosis and common events (such
as ApacheCON, etc.) it will be possible to extend the penetration of Groovy
into all sort of other ASF projects. After all, by latest count more than 60%
of projects ASF does are Java based. Groovy integration with Java is second
to none!

As for wording -- what would you suggest?

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 11/03/15 21:20, Martijn Dashorst a écrit :
> Great initiative!
>
> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
> the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?

I think we have raised the issue during the preliminary discussions. I
don't think Pivotal has any rights on the Groovy name.

I'm afraid that Marvin Gaye might has some, though ;-)


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[jan i]

Hi.

Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
caught my eye.

The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
commiters are only 5.

I am not raising it as a problem, just would like a little explanation.

I think the project would fit nicely in ASF.

rgds
jan I.

On 11 March 2015 at 19:58, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
> proposal:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
> for wide discussion before conducting and IPMC
> vote on it. In order to engage as much potential stakeholders
> as possible we will be soliciting input on {dev,users}@groovy.codehaus.org
> The main discussion, however, is going to happen on this thread.
>
> The copy of the proposal is included bellow, but please note
> that any required changes would be reflected on the wiki.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman (Groovy proposal champion and a nominated mentor).
>
> == Abstract ==
> Groovy is an object-oriented programming language for the Java
> platform. It is a primarily dynamic language with features similar to
> those of Python, Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. Groovy, if accepted by
> Incubator, will be a first major programming language developed under
> the umbrella of Apache Software Foundation.
>
> == Proposal ==
> Groovy is a programming language for the Java platform. It is a
> primarily dynamic language with features similar to those of Python,
> Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. It also has optional static type checking
> and static compilation facilities. It can be used as a scripting
> language for the Java Platform or to write complete applications, is
> compiled to Java Virtual Machine (JVM) bytecode, and interoperates
> with other Java code and libraries. Groovy uses a Java-like
> curly-bracket syntax. Most Java code is also syntactically valid
> Groovy, although semantics may be different. Groovy has long been
> developed under an Apache License v2.0 under an open governance
> community management process. However, so far Groovy has been a
> project mostly sponsored by a single company. This proposal aims at
> bringing Groovy community under the umbrella of the Apache Software
> Foundation.
>
> It must be explicitly noted, that a few sister projects such as Groovy
> Eclipse and others (some of them hosted under
> https://github.com/groovy and listed at
> http://groovy-lang.org/ecosystem.html) are not covered by this
> proposal. It is possible that these other projects will be joining ASF
> either independently or as sub-projects of Apache Groovy in the
> future. For now, we are only proposing groovy-core.
>
> == Background ==
> Groovy 1.0 was released on January 2, 2007, and Groovy 2.0 in July,
> 2012. Groovy 2.5 is planned for release in 2015. Groovy 3.0 is planned
> for release in 2016, with support for a new Meta Object Protocol.
> Since version 2, Groovy can also be compiled statically, offering type
> inference and performance very close to that of Java. Groovy 2.4 will
> be the last major release under Pivotal Software's sponsorship, which
> is scheduled to end on March 31, 2015.
>
> == Rationale ==
> Groovy is a pretty mature language. After 12 years of development, it
> has grown from being primarily a dynamic scripting language on the JVM
> to an optionally statically compiled language allowing the same
> performance level as Java applications. With the release of Groovy
> 2.4, the language targets the largest pool of mobile developers with
> native Android support. Groovy has been integrated in a large number
> of applications, including well known open-source projects like
> Jenkins, Gradle, ElasticSearch, Spring and more.
>
> There are multiple alternative languages on the JVM: Scala, Clojure,
> Ceylon, Kotlin, JRuby, Golo and others but Groovy is the only one
> which has proved to be very easy to integrate with Java in both ways:
> Groovy code using Java code, but also Java code using Groovy code.
> Groovy even provides a joint compiler which allows interdependent Java
> and Groovy classes to compile together. Groovy also supports dynamic
> code generation, that is to say classes at runtime, making it a
> perfect fit for scripting. With a very lightweight and malleable
> syntax, it is also easy to build internal Domain Specific Languages
> (DSLs) which integrate smoothly within applications.
>
> Groovy provides a number of unique features, like builders (Java 8 has
> lambdas but still has syntactic overhead and no notion of delegate),
> AST transformations (compile-time metaprogramming) or type checking
> extensions (which allows the developer to bring the compiler to levels
> of type checking and type inference that go far beyond what other
> languages do). Groovy also provides powerful integration options and
> customizations which set it apart from other languages. Groovy is also
> unique in the way it allows the developer to choose between various
> paradigms without compromise: functional vs obj

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
> caught my eye.
>
> The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
> commiters are only 5.

This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for raising it. While
preparing a proposal I've struggled with the same issue, because looking
at this: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/graphs/contributors makes
me wonder exactly the same thing.

In the end, we decided to go ahead with the proposal the way it is and position
the initial list of committers more as a PMC for the project.

That still doesn't answer your (or mine! ;-)) question of what's the best way
to make sure than anybody who feels like they have a stake in the project
and have contributed in the past get invited.

There are a few alternatives I could see, but I would really
appreciate Incubator's
collective wisdom on what would be the best way to proceed here given
that Groovy is a very mature project with a lot of contributors in the past.
Some of whom may or may not wish to keep contributing.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
> commiters are only 5...

As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
community before graduating.

The alternative would be to start with a huge list of initial
committers ("everybody who contributed more than X to Groovy") and
before graduating reduce it to the list of people who actually
contributed during incubation, but that's much more work IMO.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 12.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i  wrote:

...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
commiters are only 5...


As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
community before graduating.


community equals committers?

Anyway... how many committers would you guys find appropriate to exit 
incubation - whenever that will be? 5 seems not to be enough. Not asking 
for an exact number here of course.


bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Wiedmann]

Hello, Jochen,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou

> community equals committers?

No. The community is more than the team of committers. I'm sure you
understand. OTOH, the set of committers can be considered a
representation of the community.

I am quite certain, most Incubator members would accept a project to
have a "vibrant community", if the project could show, for example,

  * several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
  * one or two creators of graphics (icons, or whatever, without
committer privileges)
  * one or more organizations providing hosting services, and the like

assuming them to be independent of each other. However, that would be
most unusual for an Apache project: In most cases, the committers are
the active project contributors.

Groovy might very well be a case to set a precedent here, as it
already has an impressive community. Don't bother thinking too much
about that point.


> Anyway... how many committers would you guys find appropriate to exit
> incubation - whenever that will be? 5 seems not to be enough. Not asking for
> an exact number here of course.

I'd bet that there are projects who left the Incubator without more
than 5 committers, or at least, without 5 really active committers.

Again, don't waste your time thinking about that. The Groovy community
is already quite impressive - and very unusually so for an Incubator
project.

Jochen



-- 
Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> Am 12.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
>> it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
>> to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
>> community before graduating.
>
> community equals committers?

No, committers are only part of that of course - but an Apache podling
has to demonstrate that it knows how to select, vote in and onboard
new committers and PMC members.

Note that non-code committers and PMC members are also welcome in
Apache projects. They're made committers because they are committed to
the project (and we don't have a different role name) but they might
not contribute much code - as happens for people who write docs and
tutorials, act as evangelists etc.

> ...Anyway... how many committers would you guys find appropriate to exit
> incubation - whenever that will be? 5 seems not to be enough

To be viable I'd say an Apache project needs at least 5 PMC members
when graduating, as you need 3 to vote on things and people cannot be
expected to be active all the time.

But there's not set number of committers or PMC members that you need
to add during incubation, it's just "demonstrating the ability to grow
the community" which shouldn't be hard for Groovy.

HTH,
-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 12.03.2015 12:04, schrieb Jochen Wiedmann:

Hello, Jochen,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou


community equals committers?


No. The community is more than the team of committers. I'm sure you
understand. OTOH, the set of committers can be considered a
representation of the community.

I am quite certain, most Incubator members would accept a project to
have a "vibrant community", if the project could show, for example,

   * several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
   * one or two creators of graphics (icons, or whatever, without
committer privileges)
   * one or more organizations providing hosting services, and the like

assuming them to be independent of each other. However, that would be
most unusual for an Apache project: In most cases, the committers are
the active project contributors.


for example: 
https://github.com/groovy/groovy-website/graphs/contributors 
groovy-website is currently the stuff shown at groovy-lang.org That 
shows 23 contributors without commit rights in something that does not 
even exist for a year.


bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Benedikt Ritter]

My feeling is, that there this proposal has a positive feedback overall.
How about we put together a list of things that have to be changed/resolved
in the proposal before a vote can be started? I see:

- trademark issues
- Explanation of initial committers to community ratio

what else?

Benedikt


2015-03-12 13:06 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou :

> Am 12.03.2015 12:04, schrieb Jochen Wiedmann:
>
>> Hello, Jochen,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou
>>
>>  community equals committers?
>>>
>>
>> No. The community is more than the team of committers. I'm sure you
>> understand. OTOH, the set of committers can be considered a
>> representation of the community.
>>
>> I am quite certain, most Incubator members would accept a project to
>> have a "vibrant community", if the project could show, for example,
>>
>>* several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
>>* one or two creators of graphics (icons, or whatever, without
>> committer privileges)
>>* one or more organizations providing hosting services, and the like
>>
>> assuming them to be independent of each other. However, that would be
>> most unusual for an Apache project: In most cases, the committers are
>> the active project contributors.
>>
>
> for example: https://github.com/groovy/groovy-website/graphs/contributors
> groovy-website is currently the stuff shown at groovy-lang.org That shows
> 23 contributors without commit rights in something that does not even exist
> for a year.
>
> bye Jochen
>
> --
> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
 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.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 12/03/15 10:57, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
>> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the 
>> initial
>> commiters are only 5...
> As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
> also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
> to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
> community before graduating.
>
> The alternative would be to start with a huge list of initial
> committers ("everybody who contributed more than X to Groovy") and
> before graduating reduce it to the list of people who actually
> contributed during incubation, but that's much more work IMO.

Totally on the same page.

Adding new committers during the incubation period is all about proving
that there is a diverse community that can be built, and that the
project is not dead in the water from the day it get accepted. I don't
think groovy belongs to any of those two kind of projects.

Having a limited set of committers is not necessarily a bad thing. Quite
the opposite : it takes time to get "the Apache way', and it's easier to
start with a small group of fellows, that can aggregate more people
later on, transmitting what they understood about The Apache Way since
the begining of this incubation process.

Dropping 100 committers just because we can would simply make the thing
messier, IMHO.

My 2cts ;-)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 12/03/15 11:14, Jochen Theodorou a écrit :
> Am 12.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
>>> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and
>>> the initial
>>> commiters are only 5...
>>
>> As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
>> also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
>> to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
>> community before graduating.
>
> community equals committers?
>
> Anyway... how many committers would you guys find appropriate to exit
> incubation - whenever that will be? 5 seems not to be enough. Not
> asking for an exact number here of course.

Whatever *you* decide. This is your project, you know better than anyone !


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Paul King]

I would have thought that graduation would be all about showing that whatever 
list of committers we have (big or small) is working well? Having a large 
number of committers certainly makes sense with a subversion mindset but it's 
possibly an anti-pattern with a DVCS mindset (at least for a stable language in 
any case)?

The Groovy community has always valued the actual code contribution more than 
who the person was who contributedthe code. I hope we can continue in that 
fashion.

Obviously, there are logistics concerns, you need enough committers to handle 
the administrative tasks involved (and that will change with less full-time 
people contributing on that side perhaps), so we should expect changes. And, 
the voting is a bit different to what we have done in the past, so making that 
work well will be important too. I just hope we are targeting a working system 
rather than some magic number of committers.

Cheers, Paul.

On 12/03/2015 7:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i  wrote:

...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
commiters are only 5...


As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
community before graduating.

The alternative would be to start with a huge list of initial
committers ("everybody who contributed more than X to Groovy") and
before graduating reduce it to the list of people who actually
contributed during incubation, but that's much more work IMO.

-Bertrand




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> Am 12.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
>>>
>>> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
>>> initial
>>> commiters are only 5...
>>
>>
>> As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
>> also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
>> to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
>> community before graduating.
>
>
> community equals committers?
>
> Anyway... how many committers would you guys find appropriate to exit
> incubation - whenever that will be? 5 seems not to be enough. Not asking for
> an exact number here of course.

Easy: we reach out to all the folks who may have a legitimate claim to have
contributed to the project in substantial ways and ivite extend an offer to them
(explaining that being a committer is...well... a commitment). The # of those
who would like to join is the number we need to consider.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> ...Easy: we reach out to all the folks who may have a legitimate claim to have
> contributed to the project in substantial ways and ivite extend an offer to 
> them
> (explaining that being a committer is...well... a commitment). The # of those
> who would like to join is the number we need to consider

That sounds like a lot of work, you could also just do a great job as
Apache Groovy (incubating) and see who shows up. With bonus points
towards commitership for people who were previously active on Groovy.

But anyway, the details of that are for the Groovy podling to decide,
once it is accepted.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Benedikt Ritter]

2015-03-12 16:27 GMT+01:00 Bertrand Delacretaz :

> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> > ...Easy: we reach out to all the folks who may have a legitimate claim
> to have
> > contributed to the project in substantial ways and ivite extend an offer
> to them
> > (explaining that being a committer is...well... a commitment). The # of
> those
> > who would like to join is the number we need to consider
>
> That sounds like a lot of work, you could also just do a great job as
> Apache Groovy (incubating) and see who shows up. With bonus points
> towards commitership for people who were previously active on Groovy.
>

Sounds like the way to go to me. Simply inviting all previous contributors
doesn't imply they new the ASF way. So let them join the party, if they
really like and invite them to become committers after they have shown they
understand how it works around here.

B.


>
> But anyway, the details of that are for the Groovy podling to decide,
> once it is accepted.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Ted Dunning]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann 
wrote:

>   * several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
>   * one or two creators of graphics (icons, or whatever, without
> committer privileges)
>   * one or more organizations providing hosting services, and the like
>

This is a good list.  But I take strong issue with the "without committer
privileges" part.

If somebody is contributing, make them committers.  Expect them to be
responsible about what they commit and follow whatever process there is.

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I think the business about numbers of committers and how additions to the 
community are cultivated is a sniff test concerning sustainability.  The idea 
is to have some sense that there is a sustainable community in place and that 
there is as much attention on nurturing that sustainability as there is in code 
wrangling.  

Being able to produce releases is also a related consideration that has a 
sustainability component.  How is release manager rotation handled?  Is there 
release-manager rotation?  (Not graduation criteria, AFAIK, but a similar 
concern and perhaps not quite the right terms for Groovy.)
 
What these mean in practice depends a lot on what the scope of the project is, 
of course. 

My very limited experience with two podlings suggests that this all gets worked 
out in incubation (at least in terms of the direction to continue as a TLP), 
not before incubation.  Attention to these considerations most definitely does 
not end at graduation, either. 

-Original Message-
From: Paul King [mailto:pa...@asert.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 03:17
To: Bertrand Delacretaz; Incubator General
Cc: Cédric Champeau; Jochen Theodorou; pascalschumacher; Guillaume Laforge
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal


I would have thought that graduation would be all about showing that whatever 
list of committers we have (big or small) is working well? Having a large 
number of committers certainly makes sense with a subversion mindset but it's 
possibly an anti-pattern with a DVCS mindset (at least for a stable language in 
any case)?

The Groovy community has always valued the actual code contribution more than 
who the person was who contributedthe code. I hope we can continue in that 
fashion.

Obviously, there are logistics concerns, you need enough committers to handle 
the administrative tasks involved (and that will change with less full-time 
people contributing on that side perhaps), so we should expect changes. And, 
the voting is a bit different to what we have done in the past, so making that 
work well will be important too. I just hope we are targeting a working system 
rather than some magic number of committers.

Cheers, Paul.

On 12/03/2015 7:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i  wrote:
>> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the 
>> initial
>> commiters are only 5...
>
> As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
> also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
> to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
> community before graduating.
>
> The alternative would be to start with a huge list of initial
> committers ("everybody who contributed more than X to Groovy") and
> before graduating reduce it to the list of people who actually
> contributed during incubation, but that's much more work IMO.
>
> -Bertrand
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Daniel Kulp]

> On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  
> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>  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.  


-- 
Daniel Kulp
dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)]

+1

See C030 on our project maturity model 
http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html

And some commentary on committer = someone who is committed rather than someone 
who commits code https://community.apache.org/contributors/

Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation

-Original Message-
From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:22 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Cédric Champeau; Paul King; pascalschumacher; Guillaume Laforge
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann 
wrote:

>   * several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
>   * one or two creators of graphics (icons, or whatever, without 
> committer privileges)
>   * one or more organizations providing hosting services, and the like
>

This is a good list.  But I take strong issue with the "without committer 
privileges" part.

If somebody is contributing, make them committers.  Expect them to be 
responsible about what they commit and follow whatever process there is.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 12.03.2015 17:21, schrieb Ted Dunning:

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann 
wrote:


   * several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
   * one or two creators of graphics (icons, or whatever, without
committer privileges)
   * one or more organizations providing hosting services, and the like


This is a good list.  But I take strong issue with the "without committer
privileges" part.

If somebody is contributing, make them committers.  Expect them to be
responsible about what they commit and follow whatever process there is.


If talk about say 10 commits within 3 months, sure. Just does not happen 
for 90% of the contributors. Many work on a project at their workplace 
and once the problem the have faced is solved they walk away again.


bye Jochen


--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Cédric Champeau]

On 12/03/2015 17:53, Daniel Kulp wrote:

On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
 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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Cédric Champeau]

I made this remark to myself, which is that too many people still think 
that Groovy is only a dynamic language. I think it's a problem because
it's not, and some people really dislike dynamic languages. When they 
read something like "the Groovy dynamic object-oriented programming 
language" (from the Apache blog post)
may not realize that it's much more than that (it was only dynamic a few 
years ago, but it has evolved a lot, and now a static language as much as
it is a dynamic one). So I would lean towards rephrasing the first 
paragraph of the proposal from "It is a primarily dynamic language with 
features similar to those of Python, Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk."
to "It is a programming language with features similar to those of 
Python, Ruby, Java, Perl, and Smalltalk."


And if possible, everything we see "dynamic programming language", 
remove the mention to "dynamic" to just "programming language". What do 
you think? It's not that I don't like the dynamic
programming aspects of Groovy of course, but I think we should not cut 
off part of our user base just by making erroneous statements.



On 11/03/2015 19:58, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

Hi!

It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
proposal:
 https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
for wide discussion before conducting and IPMC
vote on it. In order to engage as much potential stakeholders
as possible we will be soliciting input on {dev,users}@groovy.codehaus.org
The main discussion, however, is going to happen on this thread.

The copy of the proposal is included bellow, but please note
that any required changes would be reflected on the wiki.

Thanks,
Roman (Groovy proposal champion and a nominated mentor).

== Abstract ==
Groovy is an object-oriented programming language for the Java
platform. It is a primarily dynamic language with features similar to
those of Python, Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. Groovy, if accepted by
Incubator, will be a first major programming language developed under
the umbrella of Apache Software Foundation.

== Proposal ==
Groovy is a programming language for the Java platform. It is a
primarily dynamic language with features similar to those of Python,
Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk. It also has optional static type checking
and static compilation facilities. It can be used as a scripting
language for the Java Platform or to write complete applications, is
compiled to Java Virtual Machine (JVM) bytecode, and interoperates
with other Java code and libraries. Groovy uses a Java-like
curly-bracket syntax. Most Java code is also syntactically valid
Groovy, although semantics may be different. Groovy has long been
developed under an Apache License v2.0 under an open governance
community management process. However, so far Groovy has been a
project mostly sponsored by a single company. This proposal aims at
bringing Groovy community under the umbrella of the Apache Software
Foundation.

It must be explicitly noted, that a few sister projects such as Groovy
Eclipse and others (some of them hosted under
https://github.com/groovy and listed at
http://groovy-lang.org/ecosystem.html) are not covered by this
proposal. It is possible that these other projects will be joining ASF
either independently or as sub-projects of Apache Groovy in the
future. For now, we are only proposing groovy-core.

== Background ==
Groovy 1.0 was released on January 2, 2007, and Groovy 2.0 in July,
2012. Groovy 2.5 is planned for release in 2015. Groovy 3.0 is planned
for release in 2016, with support for a new Meta Object Protocol.
Since version 2, Groovy can also be compiled statically, offering type
inference and performance very close to that of Java. Groovy 2.4 will
be the last major release under Pivotal Software's sponsorship, which
is scheduled to end on March 31, 2015.

== Rationale ==
Groovy is a pretty mature language. After 12 years of development, it
has grown from being primarily a dynamic scripting language on the JVM
to an optionally statically compiled language allowing the same
performance level as Java applications. With the release of Groovy
2.4, the language targets the largest pool of mobile developers with
native Android support. Groovy has been integrated in a large number
of applications, including well known open-source projects like
Jenkins, Gradle, ElasticSearch, Spring and more.

There are multiple alternative languages on the JVM: Scala, Clojure,
Ceylon, Kotlin, JRuby, Golo and others but Groovy is the only one
which has proved to be very easy to integrate with Java in both ways:
Groovy code using Java code, but also Java code using Groovy code.
Groovy even provides a joint compiler which allows interdependent Java
and Groovy classes to compile together. Groovy also supports dynamic
code generation, that is to say classes at runtime, making it a
perfect fit for scripting. With a very lightweight and malleable
syntax, it is also easy to build internal Domain Specific Languages
(DSLs) which integrate smoot

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> Am 12.03.2015 17:21, schrieb Ted Dunning:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>* several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
>>>* one or two creators of graphics (icons, or whatever, without
>>> committer privileges)
>>>* one or more organizations providing hosting services, and the like
>>
>>
>> This is a good list.  But I take strong issue with the "without committer
>> privileges" part.
>>
>> If somebody is contributing, make them committers.  Expect them to be
>> responsible about what they commit and follow whatever process there is.
>
>
> If talk about say 10 commits within 3 months, sure. Just does not happen for
> 90% of the contributors. Many work on a project at their workplace and once
> the problem the have faced is solved they walk away again.

That's why we have to be clear that we're inviting them to be active
participants
on the project, not simply recognizing their past merit.

In fact, I would argue that a change (or at least a clarification) of Groovy
governance model may in fact rekindle commitment in folks who in the past
were simply drive-by contributors on github.

This is exactly what fostering a vibrant community is all about.

In short:
   * blocking proposal on the # of initial committers -- no, or at
least I don't think so.
   * killing ourselves over reaching every single contributor on GH -- no.
   * doing a reasonable due diligence *while incubating* on reaching out
 to past contributors and having a conversations with them (IF they
 are interested!) -- ABSOLUTELY!

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Cédric Champeau
 wrote:
> I made this remark to myself, which is that too many people still think that
> Groovy is only a dynamic language. I think it's a problem because
> it's not, and some people really dislike dynamic languages. When they read
> something like "the Groovy dynamic object-oriented programming language"
> (from the Apache blog post)
> may not realize that it's much more than that (it was only dynamic a few
> years ago, but it has evolved a lot, and now a static language as much as
> it is a dynamic one). So I would lean towards rephrasing the first paragraph
> of the proposal from "It is a primarily dynamic language with features
> similar to those of Python, Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk."
> to "It is a programming language with features similar to those of Python,
> Ruby, Java, Perl, and Smalltalk."
> And if possible, everything we see "dynamic programming language", remove
> the mention to "dynamic" to just "programming language". What do you think?
> It's not that I don't like the dynamic
> programming aspects of Groovy of course, but I think we should not cut off
> part of our user base just by making erroneous statements.

Sure. That looks good to me. That being said -- what's written on the proposal
is only important to the IPMC so I don't think it'll be a huge change in outside
perception one way or another.

Thanks,
Roman.

P.S. That said, I never stop being amazed at what kind of 'karma' outside folks
associate with mundane things like being mentioned on an IPMC proposal.
To me, what happens *after* you get accepted and how you project your community
to the outside world is way more important than. But then again, may be I've
been at a sausage factory for too long ;-)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Cédric Champeau]

On 12/03/2015 18:19, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Cédric Champeau
 wrote:

I made this remark to myself, which is that too many people still think that
Groovy is only a dynamic language. I think it's a problem because
it's not, and some people really dislike dynamic languages. When they read
something like "the Groovy dynamic object-oriented programming language"
(from the Apache blog post)
may not realize that it's much more than that (it was only dynamic a few
years ago, but it has evolved a lot, and now a static language as much as
it is a dynamic one). So I would lean towards rephrasing the first paragraph
of the proposal from "It is a primarily dynamic language with features
similar to those of Python, Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk."
to "It is a programming language with features similar to those of Python,
Ruby, Java, Perl, and Smalltalk."
And if possible, everything we see "dynamic programming language", remove
the mention to "dynamic" to just "programming language". What do you think?
It's not that I don't like the dynamic
programming aspects of Groovy of course, but I think we should not cut off
part of our user base just by making erroneous statements.

Sure. That looks good to me. That being said -- what's written on the proposal
is only important to the IPMC so I don't think it'll be a huge change in outside
perception one way or another.
In fact, my reaction comes from the fact that I am reading many press 
articles where we read "the Groovy dynamic language" or variants.
And since this is written in the Apache Blog itself[1] and the proposal 
[2] we cannot really blame them. Marketing-wise, looks like a bad move :)


[1] https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/groovy_submitted_to_become_a
[2] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal

--
Cédric Champeau
Groovy language developer
http://twitter.com/CedricChampeau
http://melix.github.io/blog


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 12.03.2015 18:15, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
[…]

In short:
* blocking proposal on the # of initial committers -- no, or at
least I don't think so.
* killing ourselves over reaching every single contributor on GH -- no.
* doing a reasonable due diligence *while incubating* on reaching out
  to past contributors and having a conversations with them (IF they
  are interested!) -- ABSOLUTELY!


good, that means you don't see a problem for the acceptance of the proposal

bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:

> It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
> proposal:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal

I've read through the proposal (rev 17).  It looks good to me.

FWIW I winced a bit on Apache Pig's behalf when I read that "Groovy, if
accepted by Incubator, will be a first major programming language developed
under the umbrella of Apache Software Foundation."

The conversation around committer/PMC-member composition is healthy, but would
be better held on the podling dev list so that the wider Groovy community gets
to see it.  I'm am persuaded that the core contributors understand the issues
well enough, especially after reading this:

https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal#Known_Risks

For Groovy to fully transition to an "Apache Way" governance model it
needs to start embracing the meritocracy-centric way of growing the
community of contributors while balancing it with the needs for extreme
stability and coherency of the core language implementation.

Great to see Groovy here!

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jacopo Cappellato]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:

> It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
> proposal:
>https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal

Thanks Roman,

the proposal looks great and I am super happy to see Groovy in these lands!

As the PMC chair for the Apache OFBiz project I would be particularly pleased 
to have Groovy in the ASF: we use Groovy a lot and we have also implemented a 
DSL based on it [*].
I remember that, when some time ago I contributed an enhancement for 
Groovy-core for some performance issues we discovered in OFBiz [**], the 
interaction with the Groovy committers has been pleasant and productive. I look 
forward at more future collaborations among our projects and I will definitely 
closely follow Groovy in the Incubation process.

Jacopo

[*] I also presented it at two ApacheCon in Denver and Budapest
[**] https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/pull/256


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Cédric Champeau
 wrote:
> ...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

Once again, there's no set number that you have to reach to graduate -
it is not about numbers.

What we want to see from the ASF side is that the project is
sustainable, which means being able to bring in new committers and PMC
members, as in general it is common for people to leave or become less
active over time.

It seems like the initial committers of the Groovy podling have been
around for ever, and maybe you're all planning to stay for ever...but
still, a community needs to be able to renew itself over time, that's
what a podling needs to demonstrate.

As I said before, being a committer does not necessarily means commit
code - if someone's a project evangelist for example and you'd like
them to be recognized as a core team member the only way in an Apache
project is to make them a committer (and maybe PMC member). As in
"committed to the project", even if they don't write code.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 12/03/15 18:59, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
>
>> It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
>> proposal:
>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
> I've read through the proposal (rev 17).  It looks good to me.
>
> FWIW I winced a bit on Apache Pig's behalf when I read that "Groovy, if
> accepted by Incubator, will be a first major programming language developed
> under the umbrella of Apache Software Foundation."

I don't know about Pig, but Harmony was the first major programming
language developped under the umbrella of the ASF, AFAIK. Even if it was
shut down...

Just saying ;-)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Russel Winder]

I have been reading this thread via GMane with some worry. I have now
joined the email list and this post is fortuitous in that it allows me
to make some of the points I wish to contribute.

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 08:55 +0100, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Cédric Champeau
>  wrote:
> > ...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
> 
> Once again, there's no set number that you have to reach to graduate -
> it is not about numbers.

I think something has gone very wrong with this point about committer
count, see below…
> 
> What we want to see from the ASF side is that the project is
> sustainable, which means being able to bring in new committers and PMC
> members, as in general it is common for people to leave or become less
> active over time.

Sustainability is critical, but has nothing to do with the number of
committers per se, see below…

> It seems like the initial committers of the Groovy podling have been
> around for ever, and maybe you're all planning to stay for ever...but
> still, a community needs to be able to renew itself over time, that's
> what a podling needs to demonstrate.

Again I think this is going off at a tangent. Sustainability and
evolution/progress are the issues not how things are managed internally,
see below…

> As I said before, being a committer does not necessarily means commit
> code - if someone's a project evangelist for example and you'd like
> them to be recognized as a core team member the only way in an Apache
> project is to make them a committer (and maybe PMC member). As in
> "committed to the project", even if they don't write code.

I think this is a fundamentally wrong metric.

I have been associated with the Groovy programming language since 2004.
Do I have commit privileges, no. Am I part of the Groovy community?
Well I would say yes, and if you ask people at Groovy-related,
DevoxxUK-related, ACCU-related conferences "Is Russel Winder a part of
the Groovy community", I think those that knew my name would say
definitely. Likewise "Is Russel Winder a strong Groovy advocate with a
history of converting people to Groovy/Gradle/Spock/GroovyFX/GPars?"
would get a lot of yes answers. Am I a committer to the Groovy project,
no. Do I feel I have to gain status as a committer to validate my
position in the Groovy community? No.

With The Groovy Project seeking to become a TLP of the Apache
Organization, I have been taking a peek at some of the writing on The
Apache Way. The phrase that springs immediately to my mind is "Community
over Code". Most of the discussion in this thread though is about the
number of committers, as though only committers are part of the
community. Forgive me presuming to say this but this seems a
contradiction with The Apache Way as written about. Also it is very
CVCS/Subversion focussed.

In a DVCS world, committers are just the gatekeepers of the central
mainline, the judges/jury as to what meets the quality criteria. They
are not the totality of the people who contribute, and they do not
define the community. Nor is meritoriousness with respect to the
community defined by being a committer. To judge the community entirely
by the number of committers is at variance with the DVCS way of working.
Anyone, anywhen can create a changeset that can become an integral part
of the project. Should they become committers? No. Well perhaps they
might have to in a Subversion world, but in a Git/Mercurial/Bazaar
world, No. Meritocracy is defined on an episodic basis and has no direct
relationship to committer status. Moreover, it is perfectly possible for
a meritorious person to propose a very stupid changeset. To determine
health of a DVCS-based project entirely on how many become committers,
how easily one can become a committer, etc. is to misrepresent how DVCS
communities work, and how merit in such a community works.

I think the language of sustainability and committer status has to
change in this discussion. I see no problem with having just five
committers to the Groovy mainline. Sustainability is not about head
count per se, it requires knowing how to deal with rotation, etc. when
it is needed. Even this is not a measure of health of the community, it
is about ensuring the project never fails to be able to evolve. Release
management is associated with sustainability, again an evolution and
management thing, nothing to do with the health of the Groovy community.

So I would say that status within the community is unrelated to status
as a committer, and health of the project is likewise unrelated to the
number of committers. If The Apache Way requires a person to be a
committer to be considered a recognized person in a community, then I
say the metric is wrong and Apache should reconsider its metrics.

Having ways and means to ensure releases, tha

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jim Jagielski]

> community. Forgive me presuming to say this but this seems a
> contradiction with The Apache Way as written about. Also it is very
> CVCS/Subversion focussed.
> 
> In a DVCS world, committers are just the gatekeepers of the central
> mainline, the judges/jury as to what meets the quality criteria. They
> are not the totality of the people who contribute, and they do not
> define the community.

IMO, there is a mindset difference which is key, between the CVCS and
DVCS world, and it all comes down to community over code.

CVCS, in a way, reinforces the idea/concept that "we" are all
working on this "single" project "together". There is a
central project, and we are all working on *it*. DVCS turns
that around; instead, I am working on *my version* of the
project, and I ask that some of my works gets pulled into
the "official" one. Instead of a community working together,
we have a bunch of island contributors who occasionally
throw code over a wall and "move on".

Sure, it's great for getting a bunch of contributions, but
not a bunch of *contributors* (as defined as people heavily
invested and engaged). That is the supreme irony: DVCS project
can claim a huge number of "contributors", but the reality
is really a very, very small number of "committers". Apache
tries to make each contributor a committer.

That is why whenever I read about some great project on GitHub
with "hundreds of contributors" I take it with a grain of
salt; it would be like Apache counting every Bugz/JIRA
patch, every emailed patch, etc as a "contributor". At
Apache, since knowledge of the community is crucial for
the health of the community, and that also means knowledge
of the actual size, Apache needs to be more realistic and
"accurate" on what that size actually *is*.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Pid]

On 12/03/2015 15:27, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  
> wrote:
>> ...Easy: we reach out to all the folks who may have a legitimate claim to 
>> have
>> contributed to the project in substantial ways and ivite extend an offer to 
>> them
>> (explaining that being a committer is...well... a commitment). The # of those
>> who would like to join is the number we need to consider
> 
> That sounds like a lot of work, you could also just do a great job as
> Apache Groovy (incubating) and see who shows up. With bonus points
> towards commitership for people who were previously active on Groovy.

This:

> But anyway, the details of that are for the Groovy podling to decide,
> once it is accepted.

... is a key point IMHO.


p


> -Bertrand
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


-- 

[key:62590808]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

On 13 March 2015 at 10:50, Russel Winder  wrote:

> I have been reading this thread via GMane with some worry. I have now
> joined the email list and this post is fortuitous in that it allows me
> to make some of the points I wish to contribute.
>
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 08:55 +0100, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Cédric Champeau
> >  wrote:
> > > ...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
> >
> > Once again, there's no set number that you have to reach to graduate -
> > it is not about numbers.
>
> I think something has gone very wrong with this point about committer
> count, see below…
> >
>

I will clarify my comments on committer count.

I am fine with the initial committer count being the current "core" team.
That makes perfect sense.

I do think that to exit incubation, the project needs to demonstrate that
it can grow. This is because there will always be attrition, and if a
project cannot grow to counter-balance the attrition rate then at some
point it will loose critical mass and be cast off into the attic.

What is the easiest way to demonstrate that the project can grow? The
easiest way is to add new committers and PMC members... this project has a
long history of contributors outside of the core group that could be mined
for potential new committers during incubation... if some of those people
can be encouraged to join as a committer then that is by far and above the
easiest demonstration of ability to grow

Is that the only way? Nope, you could have a watch-list of potential
committers and be tracking their progress against whatever bar you have
set, making sure that they demonstrate whatever qualities you deem as
necessary... if you go that route you will have to work harder to prove
that you have the ability to grow...

So, I do not think that Groovy needs to have 5+X committers in order to
exit the incubator. I think that Groovy needs to have demonstrated the
ability to grow its committer and PMC community *however* the Groovy
project chooses to demonstrate its ability to grow (and actual growth is
just the easiest demonstration... you cannot argue with facts)

-Stephen

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi Russel,

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Russel Winder  wrote:
> ...I think the language of sustainability and committer status has to
> change in this discussion...

I do agree very much with the overall idea that you're expressing, and
I think it matches the spirit of Apache projects sustainability.

We've been speaking about committers so far because that's what
visible in the Groovy incubation proposal, but actually what the ASF
cares about in terms of sustainability of the project is PMC members,
as defined at http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

Apache projects are governed by their PMC, and what's important is to
have a sufficient number of active PMC members for the project to
operate. Releases and similar votes need 3 PMC members votes, so If a
project goes below three active PMC members it cannot operate anymore
and the next step is http://attic.apache.org/ where the project is
frozen. Or a reboot where Apache members join the PMC until the
situation improves, we've seen that in the past.

So what's important is to have enough PMC members to operate (say >=5
to have some slack), and that group needs to renew itself as people
usually don't stay forever.

Now, for "mechanical" reasons one needs to be a committer to become a
PMC member in Apache projects. It doesn't mean you'll ever commit
anything, and I agree with your view that in a DVCS world it might be
only a few people who actually commit to the core repository, but you
need the committer status to become a PMC member.

So it might be a good idea for someone who's a recognized Groovy
advocate to eventually get on the Groovy PMC, to make them an official
member of the team, as they are people who care and understand about
the long-term future of the project. Those folks might not use their
commit bit but they are trusted anyway so we don't really care if they
use it or not.

I hope this helps clarify things - for now I don't think any changes
to the proposal are needed, and we can pursue this discussion once the
Groovy podling is established.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Benson Margulies]

JimJag, for years, has written about the cultural implications of
DVCS, and the email here supports what he's written. So I think we
need to pay close attention.

I think that we care about both PMC and committer inventory. I, for
one, would not want to see an Apache project that restricted commit
access to a small group of PMC gatekeepers. You might think of it as
'commit=PMC' gone bad. I think that an important piece of Apache
culture is that a very wide group of people is trusted with access to
add to the main line of development, trusting in the PMC to use the
tools available to attend to the rare mishap.

This has nothing to do with the start of incubation in my view. Groovy
can start with 2 committers or 200. By the end of incubation, however,
I would hope to see some cultural shift in the direction of broad
commit access. Given the existing size and health of the community,
I'd agree with others that the usual concern of worrying about the
community reaching and maintain critical mass does not come up.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 13.03.2015 13:28, schrieb Benson Margulies:
[...]

This has nothing to do with the start of incubation in my view.


+1

I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really 
the only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen 
once we are incubation? Shouldn't we focus more on the things that get 
prevent the project from entering incubation? Because my current 
impression is that there is no such point.


bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:

> I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really the
> only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen once we are
> incubation? Shouldn't we focus more on the things that get prevent the
> project from entering incubation? Because my current impression is that
> there is no such point.

+1

For the record, there are dozens of communities using distributed version
control at Apache which are "open", "healthy", "sustainable", "in good
standing" and 100% in tune with "The Apache Way".  There is every reason to
believe that the Groovy community will join them.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> ...Shouldn't we focus more on the things that get prevent the
> project from entering incubation?...

Indeed - the discussions about committers/PMC are useful to the
Incubator at large but not directly related to accepting Groovy.

In general we leave the discussion open for at least 72 hours before
moving on to voting to accept the podling, unless there are open
objections - but I don't think there are any at this point.

Starting the vote on the proposal is Roman's job anyway, as the Groovy
champion, so let's wait for him.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Mar 13, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> 
>> I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really the
>> only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen once we are
>> incubation? Shouldn't we focus more on the things that get prevent the
>> project from entering incubation? Because my current impression is that
>> there is no such point.
> 
> +1
> 
> For the record, there are dozens of communities using distributed version
> control at Apache which are "open", "healthy", "sustainable", "in good
> standing" and 100% in tune with "The Apache Way".  There is every reason to
> believe that the Groovy community will join them.
> 

Of that I have no doubt. I wouldn't have worked so hard to
answer their questions, and alleviate their concerns and volunteer
to mentor if I didn't think so.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stian Soiland-Reyes]

First of all, this is a great proposal and as a occasional Groovy coder,
Groovy would be a very valuable addition to the Apache family.

My only concern is with the timing of the below:

> Groovy 2.4 will
> be the last major release under Pivotal Software's sponsorship, which
> is scheduled to end on March 31, 2015.

> Groovy has historically been hosted at Codehaus. While the project has
started
> to migrate off the Codehaus infrastructure, some critical tools of the
> project are
> still hosted there: JIRA, the mailing-list, and the deprecated wiki.
> Codehaus has
> announced end-of-support for mid-April, making the migration critical.

> Even though the sponsorship of the core team by
> Pivotal is ending on March 31st, the sheer size and diversity of the
> community is a guarantee against the project being orphaned.

Apache is a largely volunteer-driven organization. Some podling setup
stages, like getting git repositories and web pages can take up to two
weeks - Easter is also around the corner.

Migration of mailing lists is very much a manual operation where each
subscriber has to sign up manually. You can script-invite (ask me for one
such script), but still each subscriber has to confirm to move over.

Migrating issues and wikis can take some preparation.

Importing code from Github is however very easy (DVCS!), but only after the
Software Grants + CLAs have been signed, sent and accepted.

Just creating @apache.org accounts can take a week or two.

Several of the above are in a dependency chain. Obviously your mentors will
know this and guide you (and help you ping the right people when needed).
You have a very strong mentor list, so I am not too concerned.

Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is not
done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by mid-April,
which to me sounds optimistic.

Have anything be done to ask Codehaus for an extension of support during
the migration process?

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes  wrote:
> ...Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is not
> done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by mid-April,
> which to me sounds optimistic...

The full transition might take some time, but as soon as a podling has
a dev mailing list, code repository and issue tracker it can start to
operate.

And code obviously...so working on the software grants already [1]
might be a good idea, and the Groovy podling committers who don't have
@apache.org accounts yet can already send their iCLAs in [2], that
doesn't hurt.

Apache accounts creation is fast these days in my experience, I
haven't seen > 24 hours lately.

-Bertrand

[1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
[2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Cédric Champeau]

Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus only
wants to provide a CSV export which is far from being enough for us. I hope
someone at Apache has experience on this and will be able to get in touch
with Codehaus to provide a better migration path.

2015-03-13 18:33 GMT+01:00 Bertrand Delacretaz :

> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
> wrote:
> > ...Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is
> not
> > done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by mid-April,
> > which to me sounds optimistic...
>
> The full transition might take some time, but as soon as a podling has
> a dev mailing list, code repository and issue tracker it can start to
> operate.
>
> And code obviously...so working on the software grants already [1]
> might be a good idea, and the Groovy podling committers who don't have
> @apache.org accounts yet can already send their iCLAs in [2], that
> doesn't hurt.
>
> Apache accounts creation is fast these days in my experience, I
> haven't seen > 24 hours lately.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
> [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 13.03.2015 17:49, schrieb Stian Soiland-Reyes:
[...]

Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is not
done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by mid-April,
which to me sounds optimistic.


well, once we are accepted we will communicate that. There is no need to 
come with such news if you are not going to accept anyway



Have anything be done to ask Codehaus for an extension of support during
the migration process?


Codehaus is out of money for quite a while already.

bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 13/03/15 12:13, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
>> community. Forgive me presuming to say this but this seems a
>> contradiction with The Apache Way as written about. Also it is very
>> CVCS/Subversion focussed.
>>
>> In a DVCS world, committers are just the gatekeepers of the central
>> mainline, the judges/jury as to what meets the quality criteria. They
>> are not the totality of the people who contribute, and they do not
>> define the community.
> IMO, there is a mindset difference which is key, between the CVCS and
> DVCS world, and it all comes down to community over code.
>
Sorry, I don't think so :

If you can't push change in the git repo, you are just in one corner of
the internet, signaling the world you have modified something through a
PR, which might - or might not - be picked.

Those who pick those PRs and push them into the master are the
equivalent of The ASF committers.

I don't see how different is it from a CVCS world, where you checkout
trunk, change something, cut a diff and push it into a JIRA or whatever,
for the committers to process them...

Because, at the end of the day, when you clone a Git repo, this very
repo is stored and managed in a *central* place...


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Benedikt Ritter]

2015-03-13 18:36 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau :

> Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus only
> wants to provide a CSV export which is far from being enough for us. I hope
> someone at Apache has experience on this and will be able to get in touch
> with Codehaus to provide a better migration path.
>

There are some guys at my company who now Jira very well. If you run into
trouble, get in touch with me. But I think INFRA will manage the import.


>
> 2015-03-13 18:33 GMT+01:00 Bertrand Delacretaz :
>
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
> > wrote:
> > > ...Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is
> > not
> > > done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by
> mid-April,
> > > which to me sounds optimistic...
> >
> > The full transition might take some time, but as soon as a podling has
> > a dev mailing list, code repository and issue tracker it can start to
> > operate.
> >
> > And code obviously...so working on the software grants already [1]
> > might be a good idea, and the Groovy podling committers who don't have
> > @apache.org accounts yet can already send their iCLAs in [2], that
> > doesn't hurt.
> >
> > Apache accounts creation is fast these days in my experience, I
> > haven't seen > 24 hours lately.
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
> > [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>



-- 
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Benedikt Ritter]

2015-03-13 14:09 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou :

> Am 13.03.2015 13:28, schrieb Benson Margulies:
> [...]
>
>> This has nothing to do with the start of incubation in my view.
>>
>
> +1
>
> I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really the
> only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen once we
> are incubation? Shouldn't we focus more on the things that get prevent the
> project from entering incubation? Because my current impression is that
> there is no such point.


Well, Cédric raised the point about the release versioning schema during
incubation. I agree with him, that it would be strange to release Groovy
2.4.2 as Groovy 2.4.2-incubating. Do we need to talk about this?

Benedikt


>
>
> bye Jochen
>
> --
> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Benedikt Ritter  wrote:
> ...it would be strange to release Groovy
> 2.4.2 as Groovy 2.4.2-incubating. Do we need to talk about this?..

that can be discussed once the podling is established.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

We @ Maven will have a full dump of the Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration...

On 13 March 2015 at 17:36, Cédric Champeau 
wrote:

> Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus only
> wants to provide a CSV export which is far from being enough for us. I hope
> someone at Apache has experience on this and will be able to get in touch
> with Codehaus to provide a better migration path.
>
> 2015-03-13 18:33 GMT+01:00 Bertrand Delacretaz :
>
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
> > wrote:
> > > ...Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is
> > not
> > > done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by
> mid-April,
> > > which to me sounds optimistic...
> >
> > The full transition might take some time, but as soon as a podling has
> > a dev mailing list, code repository and issue tracker it can start to
> > operate.
> >
> > And code obviously...so working on the software grants already [1]
> > might be a good idea, and the Groovy podling committers who don't have
> > @apache.org accounts yet can already send their iCLAs in [2], that
> > doesn't hurt.
> >
> > Apache accounts creation is fast these days in my experience, I
> > haven't seen > 24 hours lately.
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
> > [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

(Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
migrate)

On 13 March 2015 at 21:37, Stephen Connolly  wrote:

> We @ Maven will have a full dump of the Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
> up to test migration...
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 17:36, Cédric Champeau 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus
>> only
>> wants to provide a CSV export which is far from being enough for us. I
>> hope
>> someone at Apache has experience on this and will be able to get in touch
>> with Codehaus to provide a better migration path.
>>
>> 2015-03-13 18:33 GMT+01:00 Bertrand Delacretaz :
>>
>> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
>> > wrote:
>> > > ...Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is
>> > not
>> > > done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by
>> mid-April,
>> > > which to me sounds optimistic...
>> >
>> > The full transition might take some time, but as soon as a podling has
>> > a dev mailing list, code repository and issue tracker it can start to
>> > operate.
>> >
>> > And code obviously...so working on the software grants already [1]
>> > might be a good idea, and the Groovy podling committers who don't have
>> > @apache.org accounts yet can already send their iCLAs in [2], that
>> > doesn't hurt.
>> >
>> > Apache accounts creation is fast these days in my experience, I
>> > haven't seen > 24 hours lately.
>> >
>> > -Bertrand
>> >
>> > [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>> > [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>> >
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 13.03.2015 22:37, schrieb Stephen Connolly:

We @ Maven will have a full dump of the Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration...


you mean more than a JSON export lacking comments and attachements?

bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:

(Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
migrate)


ah ok, that explains it. It does not look like we get the privilege so far

bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Steve Loughran]

> On 13 Mar 2015, at 20:48, Benedikt Ritter  wrote:
> 
> Well, Cédric raised the point about the release versioning schema during
> incubation. I agree with him, that it would be strange to release Groovy
> 2.4.2 as Groovy 2.4.2-incubating. Do we need to talk about this?

It'll cause lots of confusion in those of us who build downstream off the mvn 
artifacts. 

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Steve Loughran]

> On 14 Mar 2015, at 00:13, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> 
> Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>> (Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
>> bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
>> JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
>> migrate)
> 
> ah ok, that explains it. It does not look like we get the privilege so far

somewhat related & somewhat off-topic What's going to happen to those maven 
plugins that also live in codehaus? 

http://mojo.codehaus.org/

Certainly http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/ is kind of important?

Is anyone trying to recruit them to the ASF project -and get their JIRA logs in 
there too?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Benson Margulies]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Steve Loughran  wrote:

Perhaps you might consider asking Maven questions on a Maven list? If
you peruse the Maven dev list, you'll find an ongoing conversation.

>
>> On 14 Mar 2015, at 00:13, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
>>
>> Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>>> (Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
>>> bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
>>> JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
>>> migrate)
>>
>> ah ok, that explains it. It does not look like we get the privilege so far
>
> somewhat related & somewhat off-topic What's going to happen to those maven 
> plugins that also live in codehaus?
>
> http://mojo.codehaus.org/
>
> Certainly http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/ is kind of 
> important?
>
> Is anyone trying to recruit them to the ASF project -and get their JIRA logs 
> in there too?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Steve Loughran  wrote:

>
> > On 14 Mar 2015, at 00:13, Jochen Theodorou  > wrote:
> >
> > Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> >> (Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability
> to
> >> bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
> >> JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
> >> migrate)
> >
> > ah ok, that explains it. It does not look like we get the privilege so
> far
>
> somewhat related & somewhat off-topic What's going to happen to those
> maven plugins that also live in codehaus?
>
> http://mojo.codehaus.org/
>
> Certainly http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/ is kind of
> important?
>
> Is anyone trying to recruit them to the ASF project -and get their JIRA
> logs in there too?


The ones that are license incompatible will be "moved" to a project hosted
on github. The discussion of that is ongoing on the mojo-dev list.

I would like to see the license compatible ones move to the ASF (perhaps
within the maven project where that makes sense). As the principle author
of the versions-maven-plugin I would favour moving that to maven but I
would need to sound out the rest of the maven community/pmc


>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
>
>

-- 
Sent from my phone

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Upayavira]

When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
*included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
here?

Upayavira

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015, at 12:13 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > (Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
> > bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
> > JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
> > migrate)
> 
> ah ok, that explains it. It does not look like we get the privilege so
> far
> 
> bye Jochen
> 
> -- 
> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:

When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
*included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
here?


Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will get the 
Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot give it out 
like that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead he 
suggested a json export (which most likely will not contain everything)


So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on the part, 
that we don't have that.


bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

You should check with Hervé, but as far as I am aware it is a dump of
everything as JIRA only provides for a full export.

Because there are bits of security information in the export, access to the
dump is restricted, but ASF INFRA also have access to the dump, or we can
probably give one of you access to massage the dump into an importable
state. So I presume you should be ok on getting your issues imported...
though there is a fair bit of work involved and you probably need to check
with Hervé as to the effort has has expended getting ready to import our
issues.

On 16 March 2015 at 08:25, Upayavira  wrote:

> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
> *included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
> here?
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015, at 12:13 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> > Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > > (Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more
> ability to
> > > bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports
> from
> > > JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
> > > migrate)
> >
> > ah ok, that explains it. It does not look like we get the privilege so
> > far
> >
> > bye Jochen
> >
> > --
> > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> > german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> > For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:

> Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
>
>> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
>> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
>> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
>> *included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
>> here?
>>
>
> Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will get the
> Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot give it out like
> that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead he suggested a
> json export (which most likely will not contain everything)
>

Well we are getting the full XML dump because that's all you can get via
the XML dump, but whether we get *all* attachments or only those for Maven
is a different question.


>
> So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on the part,
> that we don't have that.


Clarification: Ben and I are co-workers.


>
>
> bye Jochen
>
> --
> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Cédric Champeau]

Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments do not
matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of comments is
very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.

2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly :

> On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
>
> > Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
> >
> >> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
> >> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
> >> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
> >> *included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
> >> here?
> >>
> >
> > Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will get the
> > Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot give it out
> like
> > that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead he
> suggested a
> > json export (which most likely will not contain everything)
> >
>
> Well we are getting the full XML dump because that's all you can get via
> the XML dump, but whether we get *all* attachments or only those for Maven
> is a different question.
>
>
> >
> > So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on the part,
> > that we don't have that.
>
>
> Clarification: Ben and I are co-workers.
>
>
> >
> >
> > bye Jochen
> >
> > --
> > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> > german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> > For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

On 16 March 2015 at 09:19, Cédric Champeau 
wrote:

> Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments do not
> matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of comments is
> very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.
>
> 2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> >
> > > Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
> > >
> > >> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
> > >> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
> > >> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
> > >> *included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
> > >> here?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will get the
> > > Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot give it out
> > like
> > > that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead he
> > suggested a
> > > json export (which most likely will not contain everything)
> > >
> >
> > Well we are getting the full XML dump because that's all you can get via
> > the XML dump, but whether we get *all* attachments or only those for
> Maven
> > is a different question.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on the part,
> > > that we don't have that.
> >
> >
> > Clarification: Ben and I are co-workers.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > bye Jochen
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> > > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> > > german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> > > For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

Arg! hit send too soon.

You should really check in with Hervé to confirm that Groovy was in the
export. I am 99% confident that your issues and comments are in the XML
dump, but you really should check with Hervé to be certain.

Also you may want to ask Mark Thomas what exactly is involved in preparing
and doing such an import. Our own timelines for Maven's switch may not
align with the Groovy incubation timelines... (mind you we are all at the
grace of Ben for getting our timeline for the second export he committed to
the Maven project)

On 16 March 2015 at 09:49, Stephen Connolly  wrote:

>
>
> On 16 March 2015 at 09:19, Cédric Champeau 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments do not
>> matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of comments is
>> very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.
>>
>> 2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>> > On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
>> > >
>> > >> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
>> > >> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
>> > >> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
>> > >> *included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
>> > >> here?
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will get the
>> > > Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot give it out
>> > like
>> > > that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead he
>> > suggested a
>> > > json export (which most likely will not contain everything)
>> > >
>> >
>> > Well we are getting the full XML dump because that's all you can get via
>> > the XML dump, but whether we get *all* attachments or only those for
>> Maven
>> > is a different question.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on the part,
>> > > that we don't have that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Clarification: Ben and I are co-workers.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > bye Jochen
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
>> > > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
>> > > german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
>> > > For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Mark Thomas]

On 16/03/2015 09:53, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Arg! hit send too soon.
> 
> You should really check in with Hervé to confirm that Groovy was in the
> export. I am 99% confident that your issues and comments are in the XML
> dump, but you really should check with Hervé to be certain.
> 
> Also you may want to ask Mark Thomas what exactly is involved in
> preparing and doing such an import. Our own timelines for Maven's switch
> may not align with the Groovy incubation timelines... (mind you we are
> all at the grace of Ben for getting our timeline for the second export
> he committed to the Maven project)

The latest test export I have does not have any Groovy data in it.

Mark


> 
> On 16 March 2015 at 09:49, Stephen Connolly
>  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 16 March 2015 at 09:19, Cédric Champeau
> mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments
> do not
> matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of
> comments is
> very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.
> 
> 2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly
>  
> >:
> 
> > On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou  > wrote:
> >
> > > Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
> > >
> > >> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full
> dump of the
> > >> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
> > >> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy
> issues are
> > >> *included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to
> worry about
> > >> here?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will
> get the
> > > Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot
> give it out
> > like
> > > that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead he
> > suggested a
> > > json export (which most likely will not contain everything)
> > >
> >
> > Well we are getting the full XML dump because that's all you
> can get via
> > the XML dump, but whether we get *all* attachments or only
> those for Maven
> > is a different question.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on
> the part,
> > > that we don't have that.
> >
> >
> > Clarification: Ben and I are co-workers.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > bye Jochen
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> > > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> > > german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> > > For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Stephen Connolly]

On 16 March 2015 at 09:58, Mark Thomas  wrote:

> On 16/03/2015 09:53, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > Arg! hit send too soon.
> >
> > You should really check in with Hervé to confirm that Groovy was in the
> > export. I am 99% confident that your issues and comments are in the XML
> > dump, but you really should check with Hervé to be certain.
> >
> > Also you may want to ask Mark Thomas what exactly is involved in
> > preparing and doing such an import. Our own timelines for Maven's switch
> > may not align with the Groovy incubation timelines... (mind you we are
> > all at the grace of Ben for getting our timeline for the second export
> > he committed to the Maven project)
>
> The latest test export I have does not have any Groovy data in it.
>

I believe that is because Hervé is stripping out on the VM to handle the
version skew.

IOW as I understand it, Hervé has a full dump. Imports into Codehaus
version of JIRA, upgrades JIRA, removes all the non-maven stuff, does some
mapping and does an export for you.


>
> Mark
>
>
> >
> > On 16 March 2015 at 09:49, Stephen Connolly
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16 March 2015 at 09:19, Cédric Champeau
> > mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments
> > do not
> > matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of
> > comments is
> > very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.
> >
> > 2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly
> >  > 
> > >:
> >
> > > On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
> > > >
> > > >> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full
> > dump of the
> > > >> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
> > > >> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy
> > issues are
> > > >> *included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to
> > worry about
> > > >> here?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will
> > get the
> > > > Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot
> > give it out
> > > like
> > > > that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead
> he
> > > suggested a
> > > > json export (which most likely will not contain everything)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well we are getting the full XML dump because that's all you
> > can get via
> > > the XML dump, but whether we get *all* attachments or only
> > those for Maven
> > > is a different question.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on
> > the part,
> > > > that we don't have that.
> > >
> > >
> > > Clarification: Ben and I are co-workers.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > bye Jochen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> > > > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> > > > german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> > > > For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>  -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Hervé Boutemy]

yes, I dropped every project we didn't want to import since some of them had 
special configuration that were causing issues

The first dump we used contained everything

Regards,

Hervé

Le lundi 16 mars 2015 10:03:37 Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> On 16 March 2015 at 09:58, Mark Thomas  wrote:
> > On 16/03/2015 09:53, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > > Arg! hit send too soon.
> > > 
> > > You should really check in with Hervé to confirm that Groovy was in the
> > > export. I am 99% confident that your issues and comments are in the XML
> > > dump, but you really should check with Hervé to be certain.
> > > 
> > > Also you may want to ask Mark Thomas what exactly is involved in
> > > preparing and doing such an import. Our own timelines for Maven's switch
> > > may not align with the Groovy incubation timelines... (mind you we are
> > > all at the grace of Ben for getting our timeline for the second export
> > > he committed to the Maven project)
> > 
> > The latest test export I have does not have any Groovy data in it.
> 
> I believe that is because Hervé is stripping out on the VM to handle the
> version skew.
> 
> IOW as I understand it, Hervé has a full dump. Imports into Codehaus
> version of JIRA, upgrades JIRA, removes all the non-maven stuff, does some
> mapping and does an export for you.
> 
> > Mark
> > 
> > > On 16 March 2015 at 09:49, Stephen Connolly
> > >  > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > On 16 March 2015 at 09:19, Cédric Champeau
> > > mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com>>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments
> > > do not
> > > matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of
> > > comments is
> > > very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.
> > > 
> > > 2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly
> > >  > > 
> > > 
> > > > On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou  > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
> > > > >> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full
> > > 
> > > dump of the
> > > 
> > > > >> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
> > > > >> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy
> > > 
> > > issues are
> > > 
> > > > >> *included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to
> > > 
> > > worry about
> > > 
> > > > >> here?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will
> > > 
> > > get the
> > > 
> > > > > Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot
> > > 
> > > give it out
> > > 
> > > > like
> > > > 
> > > > > that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead
> > 
> > he
> > 
> > > > suggested a
> > > > 
> > > > > json export (which most likely will not contain everything)
> > > > 
> > > > Well we are getting the full XML dump because that's all you
> > > 
> > > can get via
> > > 
> > > > the XML dump, but whether we get *all* attachments or only
> > > 
> > > those for Maven
> > > 
> > > > is a different question.
> > > > 
> > > > > So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on
> > > 
> > > the part,
> > > 
> > > > > that we don't have that.
> > > > 
> > > > Clarification: Ben and I are co-workers.
> > > > 
> > > > > bye Jochen
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> > > > > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> > > > > german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> > > > > For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
> >  
> >  -
> >  
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Hervé Boutemy]

Hi,

We're scheduling the Jira migration for Maven projects on the week-end of 
4/5/6 april.
If this schedule is fine for Groovy, I suppose it would be ok to add Groovy 
Jira project to the actual list [1]
Just tell, and I'll avoid to remove Groovy from the full dump we'll have 
during the migration.

Regards,

Hervé

Notice: please CC me if necessary, since I'm not subscribed to 
general@incubator

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9116

Le lundi 16 mars 2015 09:53:00 Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> Arg! hit send too soon.
> 
> You should really check in with Hervé to confirm that Groovy was in the
> export. I am 99% confident that your issues and comments are in the XML
> dump, but you really should check with Hervé to be certain.
> 
> Also you may want to ask Mark Thomas what exactly is involved in preparing
> and doing such an import. Our own timelines for Maven's switch may not
> align with the Groovy incubation timelines... (mind you we are all at the
> grace of Ben for getting our timeline for the second export he committed to
> the Maven project)
> 
> On 16 March 2015 at 09:49, Stephen Connolly  > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 16 March 2015 at 09:19, Cédric Champeau 
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments do not
> >> matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of comments is
> >> very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.
> >> 
> >> 2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly <
> >> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
> >> 
> >> > On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> >> > > Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
> >> > >> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
> >> > >> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
> >> > >> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
> >> > >> *included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
> >> > >> here?
> >> > > 
> >> > > Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will get the
> >> > > Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot give it
> >> > > out
> >> > 
> >> > like
> >> > 
> >> > > that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead he
> >> > 
> >> > suggested a
> >> > 
> >> > > json export (which most likely will not contain everything)
> >> > 
> >> > Well we are getting the full XML dump because that's all you can get
> >> > via
> >> > the XML dump, but whether we get *all* attachments or only those for
> >> 
> >> Maven
> >> 
> >> > is a different question.
> >> > 
> >> > > So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on the
> >> > > part,
> >> > > that we don't have that.
> >> > 
> >> > Clarification: Ben and I are co-workers.
> >> > 
> >> > > bye Jochen
> >> > > 
> >> > > --
> >> > > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> >> > > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> >> > > german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> >> > > For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > -
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Cédric Champeau]

Hi Hervé,

It would be very nice, if it fits the general schedule (Groovy is not 
yet voted).


Best regards,

On 16/03/2015 23:00, Hervé Boutemy wrote:

Hi,

We're scheduling the Jira migration for Maven projects on the week-end of
4/5/6 april.
If this schedule is fine for Groovy, I suppose it would be ok to add Groovy
Jira project to the actual list [1]
Just tell, and I'll avoid to remove Groovy from the full dump we'll have
during the migration.

Regards,

Hervé

Notice: please CC me if necessary, since I'm not subscribed to
general@incubator

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9116

Le lundi 16 mars 2015 09:53:00 Stephen Connolly a écrit :

Arg! hit send too soon.

You should really check in with Hervé to confirm that Groovy was in the
export. I am 99% confident that your issues and comments are in the XML
dump, but you really should check with Hervé to be certain.

Also you may want to ask Mark Thomas what exactly is involved in preparing
and doing such an import. Our own timelines for Maven's switch may not
align with the Groovy incubation timelines... (mind you we are all at the
grace of Ben for getting our timeline for the second export he committed to
the Maven project)

On 16 March 2015 at 09:49, Stephen Connolly 
wrote:



On 16 March 2015 at 09:19, Cédric Champeau 

wrote:

Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments do not
matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of comments is
very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.

2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com


On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:

Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:

When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
*included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
here?

Even if Stephen gets a full dump, this does not mean we will get the
Groovy part out of it. Ben was so far telling us he cannot give it
out

like


that, because of private and internal data in there. Instead he

suggested a


json export (which most likely will not contain everything)

Well we are getting the full XML dump because that's all you can get
via
the XML dump, but whether we get *all* attachments or only those for

Maven


is a different question.


So unless Stephy has this clear with his employee I stand on the
part,
that we don't have that.

Clarification: Ben and I are co-workers.


bye Jochen

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org




--
Cédric Champeau
Groovy language developer
http://twitter.com/CedricChampeau
http://melix.github.io/blog


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
>... Starting the vote on the proposal is Roman's job anyway, as the Groovy
> champion, so let's wait for him...

Is there any reason to wait more?
IMO the discussion on the proposal has died down so we can move forward.

Roman, WDYT?

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Benson Margulies]

You may think that the discussion has died down, but perhaps recall
the lesson of NiFi. Or not, it might not strike you as applicable.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
>>... Starting the vote on the proposal is Roman's job anyway, as the Groovy
>> champion, so let's wait for him...
>
> Is there any reason to wait more?
> IMO the discussion on the proposal has died down so we can move forward.
>
> Roman, WDYT?
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> You may think that the discussion has died down, but perhaps recall
> the lesson of NiFi. Or not, it might not strike you as applicable.

exactly!

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
> On 3/11/15 4:20 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> Great initiative!
>>
>> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
>> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
>> the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?
>
> Good point.  Just from the Apache *policy* side, the ASF must have
> trademark rights to a podling's name before the board will approve a
> graduation vote.  With such a long history, we would need a clear
> statement of some sort from whoever was previously hosting Groovy
> software product releases, which would seem to be Pivotal.  Or, the
> podling would have to choose a new name that we did have rights to.  8-)
>
> If the PPMC requests it, we can then register the project's name as a
> trademark in the US *after* graduation.
>
> If this podling joins the incubator, please coordinate some Groovy PPMC
> and Pivotal contacts with trademarks@.  Presuming Pivotal is willing
> (and I can't imagine why they wouldn't be), trademarks@ can ensure the
> right stuff gets done.

Turns out it is not up to Pivotal. In fact, the statement I've just got goes
like this: "Pivotal does not have, nor will it make, any claims to the GROOVY
trademark"

Basically, Pivotal was happy to sponsor the project (just like it sponsors
RabbitMQ or Redis) but wasn't involved in sorting out the situation around
the Groovy project name and its legal status.

Shane, please let me know if this bit of information is sufficient for you.
It appears as though ASF will have to do the usual PODDLINGNAMESEARCH
and determine the status of Groovy trademark on its own.

I plan to start a [VOTE] thread sometime on Wed, unless you tell me otherwise.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> ...You may think that the discussion has died down, but perhaps recall
> the lesson of NiFi. Or not, it might not strike you as applicable...

I wasn't involved (or maybe I think I wasn't ;-) so I don't - archive
URLs welcome.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

Hi Russel!

thanks for following up here. I've seen that others have commented
on the points you raised, but I also wanted to chime in before this
thread goes into a VOTE phase.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Russel Winder  wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 08:55 +0100, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Cédric Champeau
>>  wrote:
>> > ...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
>>
>> Once again, there's no set number that you have to reach to graduate -
>> it is not about numbers.
>
> I think something has gone very wrong with this point about committer
> count, see below…

I could see where you're coming from, but my personal experience around
incubator suggests that this could only be a problem if the folks who may
have a stake in the project are not recognized during the incubation phase.

See bellow for more details:

>> As I said before, being a committer does not necessarily means commit
>> code - if someone's a project evangelist for example and you'd like
>> them to be recognized as a core team member the only way in an Apache
>> project is to make them a committer (and maybe PMC member). As in
>> "committed to the project", even if they don't write code.
>
> I think this is a fundamentally wrong metric.
>
> I have been associated with the Groovy programming language since 2004.
> Do I have commit privileges, no. Am I part of the Groovy community?
> Well I would say yes, and if you ask people at Groovy-related,
> DevoxxUK-related, ACCU-related conferences "Is Russel Winder a part of
> the Groovy community", I think those that knew my name would say
> definitely. Likewise "Is Russel Winder a strong Groovy advocate with a
> history of converting people to Groovy/Gradle/Spock/GroovyFX/GPars?"
> would get a lot of yes answers. Am I a committer to the Groovy project,
> no. Do I feel I have to gain status as a committer to validate my
> position in the Groovy community? No.

This is where ASF starts being a really special kind of foundation. While
the committership status most definitely allows you to push bits into
source code repository, what it really signifies is your commitment
(no pun intended) to the project. This is a very subtle, but a very important
distinction that Incubator folks are trying to emphasize with every poddling.
Poddling's community is NOT only developers, but all the other folks
who make the community vibrant as well.

Now, given that a formal recognition of a committer could be somewhat
time consuming, I've seen a few cases in the past where a PMC approached
a prolific contributor to invite him or her to join a project in a
more official status
and received a polite decline. To me this shows a great degree of maturity
and responsibility, but the fact that the offer was made in first place shows
that the project is functioning as a true ASF project.

Now, I don't have a benefit of following Groovy development history for as long
as you have (I've started my journey somewhere around '09). That said,
from what I've seen -- you're definitely one of the 'Groovy folks'.
Thus, as a mentor,
I am going to make sure that Groovy podling does the right things and reaches
out to the folks like you.

More on the process here: https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html

> With The Groovy Project seeking to become a TLP of the Apache
> Organization, I have been taking a peek at some of the writing on The
> Apache Way. The phrase that springs immediately to my mind is "Community
> over Code". Most of the discussion in this thread though is about the
> number of committers, as though only committers are part of the
> community. Forgive me presuming to say this but this seems a
> contradiction with The Apache Way as written about. Also it is very
> CVCS/Subversion focussed.

You're absolutely correct. The community is way bigger than PMC and also
bigger than formally recognized committers. That said, making sure that
merit is recognized with invitations is one of the things we feels helps us
run great communities as smoothly as possible.

> So I would say that status within the community is unrelated to status
> as a committer, and health of the project is likewise unrelated to the
> number of committers. If The Apache Way requires a person to be a
> committer to be considered a recognized person in a community, then I
> say the metric is wrong and Apache should reconsider its metrics.
>
> Having ways and means to ensure releases, that pull requests come in,
> that mailing lists are vibrant and constructive, that Groovy evolves to
> the needs of mankind (not just the current users) is almost, but not
> quite, totally unrelated to the number of committers.

Personally, I think we are completely on the same page.

Please let me know if you have any suggestions wrt. wording of the proposal.

We

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Shane Curcuru]

On 3/17/15 12:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
>> On 3/11/15 4:20 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>>> Great initiative!
>>>
>>> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
>>> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
>>> the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?
>>
>> Good point.  Just from the Apache *policy* side, the ASF must have
>> trademark rights to a podling's name before the board will approve a
>> graduation vote.  With such a long history, we would need a clear
>> statement of some sort from whoever was previously hosting Groovy
>> software product releases, which would seem to be Pivotal.  Or, the
>> podling would have to choose a new name that we did have rights to.  8-)
>>
>> If the PPMC requests it, we can then register the project's name as a
>> trademark in the US *after* graduation.
>>
>> If this podling joins the incubator, please coordinate some Groovy PPMC
>> and Pivotal contacts with trademarks@.  Presuming Pivotal is willing
>> (and I can't imagine why they wouldn't be), trademarks@ can ensure the
>> right stuff gets done.
> 
> Turns out it is not up to Pivotal. In fact, the statement I've just got goes
> like this: "Pivotal does not have, nor will it make, any claims to the GROOVY
> trademark"

Can you ensure that whoever actually wrote that from the Pivotal side
communicates it to trademarks@, or at least to vp-brand@?  If we do have
questions later, counsel will need to email someone directly about it.

> 
> Basically, Pivotal was happy to sponsor the project (just like it sponsors
> RabbitMQ or Redis) but wasn't involved in sorting out the situation around
> the Groovy project name and its legal status.
> 
> Shane, please let me know if this bit of information is sufficient for you.
> It appears as though ASF will have to do the usual PODDLINGNAMESEARCH
> and determine the status of Groovy trademark on its own.
> 
> I plan to start a [VOTE] thread sometime on Wed, unless you tell me otherwise.

No need to gate a podling acceptance vote on branding issues.  The only
hard requirement is before graduation.

- Shane

> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Jim Jagielski]

This should also be done for the logo as well... I don't
know the provenance of it, but I am sure that the Groovy
team does not want to abandon its logo.

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
> 
> On 3/17/15 12:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
>>> On 3/11/15 4:20 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
 Great initiative!
 
 Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
 possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
 the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?
>>> 
>>> Good point.  Just from the Apache *policy* side, the ASF must have
>>> trademark rights to a podling's name before the board will approve a
>>> graduation vote.  With such a long history, we would need a clear
>>> statement of some sort from whoever was previously hosting Groovy
>>> software product releases, which would seem to be Pivotal.  Or, the
>>> podling would have to choose a new name that we did have rights to.  8-)
>>> 
>>> If the PPMC requests it, we can then register the project's name as a
>>> trademark in the US *after* graduation.
>>> 
>>> If this podling joins the incubator, please coordinate some Groovy PPMC
>>> and Pivotal contacts with trademarks@.  Presuming Pivotal is willing
>>> (and I can't imagine why they wouldn't be), trademarks@ can ensure the
>>> right stuff gets done.
>> 
>> Turns out it is not up to Pivotal. In fact, the statement I've just got goes
>> like this: "Pivotal does not have, nor will it make, any claims to the GROOVY
>> trademark"
> 
> Can you ensure that whoever actually wrote that from the Pivotal side
> communicates it to trademarks@, or at least to vp-brand@?  If we do have
> questions later, counsel will need to email someone directly about it.
> 
>> 
>> Basically, Pivotal was happy to sponsor the project (just like it sponsors
>> RabbitMQ or Redis) but wasn't involved in sorting out the situation around
>> the Groovy project name and its legal status.
>> 
>> Shane, please let me know if this bit of information is sufficient for you.
>> It appears as though ASF will have to do the usual PODDLINGNAMESEARCH
>> and determine the status of Groovy trademark on its own.
>> 
>> I plan to start a [VOTE] thread sometime on Wed, unless you tell me 
>> otherwise.
> 
> No need to gate a podling acceptance vote on branding issues.  The only
> hard requirement is before graduation.
> 
> - Shane
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Pascal Schumacher]

Hi everybody,

when will the voting start? Or if it did start already when will there 
be decision?


Thanks and kind regards,
Pascal

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Upayavira]

Roman is saying he will start the vote tomorrow. You will see a thread
on this list with [VOTE] in the subject.

As to what the vote is about - this is the Apache Incubator PMC (Project
Management Committee) voting as to whether to accept Groovy into the
Incubator. Votes from others, who aren’t on the Incubator PMC are
welcome as they inform the process, but for this particular purpose,
won’t be binding.

Personally, it seems a pretty straight-forward thing to me, but then, we
won’t know that for sure until the vote has actually happened.

I’d expect Roman’s vote email to explain how long the vote will run for.

Upayavira

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 06:27 PM, Pascal Schumacher wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> when will the voting start? Or if it did start already when will there 
> be decision?
> 
> Thanks and kind regards,
> Pascal
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[OFF-LIST] RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1 Nice. Great anticipation and risk management.  Great to see made visible.


 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail




-Original Message-
From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 14:39
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

(Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
migrate)

On 13 March 2015 at 21:37, Stephen Connolly  wrote:

> We @ Maven will have a full dump of the Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
> up to test migration...
>
[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org