commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Akolkar <>
Subject [ALL] Accepting codebases
Date Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:23:46 GMT
So the Sanselan discussion more broadly triggers a few thoughts in my
mind, but this thread is not meant to be Sanselan specific.

Understanding that not all decisions are objective, I still haven't
convinced myself that I have a reasonable set of somewhat objective
criteria that I can iterate over in determining the suitability of
codebases (and communities by association) proposed for addition to
Commons. This is in turn about two viewpoints (assumed reasonable):

 * We want the Commons community to grow and prosper, we want Commons
code to do new and interesting things

 * We want Commons to sustain growth and (a) not become too fragmented
or (b) not become an umbrella

In terms of growth, theres a couple of models and we haven't had many
M&A style scenarios -- i.e. once seeded, we've more or less had
organic growth with few exceptions.

In terms of the Apache Incubator, there is a potential of having other
podlings reach Sanselan's status-quo. With the existing metric we
would be hard pressed to not accept any of those (which in turn leads
to the concerns in the second bullet above). Another approach, for
example, would be for interested Commons committers to actually engage
with the podling community first, and then propose addition to Commons
(i.e. instead of saying we'd like 3 committers working on the code,
its 3 -- or 2 -- existing Commons committers interested/working on

On unrelated notes (though some of this has come up elsewhere before)
I'd prefer for all components old and new:
 * o.a.c packages
 * use of commons-parent, common-skin etc.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message