Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[wtp-pmc] Status of adding incubating project members as committers to wtp releng

End of long story: The EMO (via Bjorn) doesn't consider this any differently (currently) than any other committer for any other component. Meaning, we would have to go through the whole WTP "nomination/vote" cycle for these folks, to give them access to WTP ... and, technically, that should be for their history and contributions to WTP, not just because we are incubating them as a project. I can see some merit to this view, though, obviously, arguments could be made for different rules for incubating projects ... but .. so far, there are no different rules.

So, there's two options I can think of. I have a preference for the second one, but am open to any solution.

1. Continue status quo: they provide patches to our build files and map files and Naci continues to coach them on "how to do it", as he has been. This would continue until they graduate from incubation, and become components or sub-projects of WTP.

2. Someone (Naci? Jeffrey?) apply some effort to improve the "portability" of our build process and those projects build their own code using identical methodology *AND* that same person improve our "cascading build" methodology, so once WTP build is done, JSF, et. al. would automatically "pick up" the latest build and build their stuff. And, of course, this would still require the mentoring and "how to" coaching that needs to take place in either case.

Part of the reason I recommend the second option is that we ourselves need to improve our "cascading build" ability, so that, for example, we can easily and automatically get the latest build of our pre-reqs to build against. So, us doing it for "downstream" projects would not be totally "extra" effort, and might improve the overall process. Jeffrey has done some of this for testing, but I personally have not looked to see how he's doing it, or how much work would be involved in transposing it to cascaded builds (instead of cascaded tests).

Can anyone think of other options?

Perhaps we could discuss/decide at next PMC meeting?


Back to the top