On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Jeff Turner wrote:
Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers
+1
Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon
(http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest)
+1
Andrew.
--
Andrew SavoryEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 25/06/2003 0.12:
on 6/24/03 7:19 AM Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
PS: This makes me think that Linotype should have its own project rather
than being just a block...
I think some other current blocks are good candidates as subprojects but
I
On 26/06/2003 9:37 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
[on the suggestion to move Linotype into its own proper subproject]
IMHO It's all about communities more than deployment infrastructure.
So yes, I agree that it's not yet time. As always I'm speaking in
present tense for future things... 8-)
+1
David Crossley wrote, On 25/06/2003 4.26:
...
One disadvantage with moving Cocoon and Forrest away from xml.apache.org
is that all Cocoon and Forrest committers are already automatically
committers on xml-commons and could be helping that important project
to find its feet.
This is a good point,
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicola
Ken Barozzi
Jeff Turner wrote, On 24/06/2003 13.38:
As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev
suggesting
that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the
consensus being
it makes sense.
AFAICT
on 6/24/03 7:19 AM Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Jeff Turner wrote, On 24/06/2003 13.38:
As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting
that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the
consensus being it
makes sense.
AFAICT the only
As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting
that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the consensus being it
makes sense.
AFAICT the only practical difference would be that Cocoon committers
would automatically become Forrest committers. Sounds fine to me.
From: Jeff Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers
+1
Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon
(http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest)
+0
J.
Jeff Turner wrote, On 24/06/2003 13.38:
As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting
that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the consensus being it
makes sense.
AFAICT the only practical difference would be that Cocoon committers
would automatically become
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Jeff Turner wrote, On 24/06/2003 13.38:
As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting
that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the
consensus being it
makes sense.
AFAICT the only practical difference would be that
At 07:38 AM 6/24/2003, you wrote:
Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers
+1 except I don't see how we can mandate this if they are not a subproject.
Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon
(http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest)
+1 if they want to. it seems to
John Morrison wrote:
From: Jeff Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers
+1
+1
Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon
(http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest)
+0
+0
J.
-marc=
--
Marc Portier
On 24/06/2003 13:38 Jeff Turner wrote:
I vote +1 and +/-0. Both make sense, but 2) seems slightly more pain than
gain, unless there's some advantage I've overlooked.
+1
/Steven
--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence
Jeff Turner wrote:
Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers
+1
Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon
(http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest)
+1
Joerg
Jeff Turner wrote:
As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting
that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the consensus being it
makes sense.
AFAICT the only practical difference would be that Cocoon committers
would automatically become Forrest
15 matches
Mail list logo
