Re: Donation of Maven plugins to the Maven Project.

>
> On 09/05/2008, at 6:03 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, hold on there. 1) Since when did accepting new bodies of code  
>>>> be decided between two people.
>>>
>>> It shouldn't be, and IMO this discussion should continue and get  
>>> some more opinions (as I said "if there is support here"). After  
>>> that, the sandbox is the best starting point and if anything goes  
>>> in that is more than James' own work, then the IP clearance papers  
>>> should of course be filled in too.
>>>
>>> But one standard for everyone, please. You checked in a more  
>>> significant contribution without discussion *at all* just a few  
>>> days ago (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=653572).
>>
>> I'm a committer and Ivan did not get access to our repository, and  
>> it was no different then the GIT provider.
>
> The difference was that the GIT provider was discussed and  
> contributed via JIRA, like all other contributions. The other  
> provider appeared, on trunk, completely unannounced. It's clearly a  
> double standard to then turn around and say things like "Since when  
> did accepting new bodies of code be decided between two people."

>
>
> But to be absolutely clear, I think the Accurev contribution is  
> great in the log run, and I'm glad to see Ivan on the lists  
> supporting it. I certainly have no complaint with them. Let's move on.
>
>> Whereas the difference is access to our repository for what is  
>> honestly a duplication of much code that exists, and far less then  
>> something like an SCM provider. There is a stark difference because  
>> I don't freely hand out access. There are alternatives for plugins,  
>> especially given our model is fully distributed, and we already  
>> have a ton of orphaned plugins.
>>
>> What I checked in was written by the only people in the world with  
>> clear authority to write that SCM provider. Whereas these plugins  
>> largely duplicate what exists. So I think there is a stark  
>> difference.
>
> Firstly, no access has been handed out that wasn't already present.  
> If you now have a problem with the sandbox openness we instituted as  
> a group, please raise that separately.
>
> I wasn't debating the relative merits of the two contributions. As  
> far as I'm concerned, the discussion is ongoing - as I said, the  
> wagon plugin as is needs some work to be suitable for Wagon, if at  
> all. I don't want to maintain something that is only duplication  
> either. The license plugin in particular needs to take a look at  
> ways to interact with the existing techs rather than being a new  
> thing (there is also IANAL at Mojo that I just saw), but I think  
> better license handling is worth pursuing if James has ideas.
>
> Let's just continue that discussion, as two separate threads for  
> each thing.
>
> Thanks,
> Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@...
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>