On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Original message --
From: Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's fine, but I don't really see _anyone_ driving releases :-).
What's
the problem with letting Shale Test move somewhere else?
The problem, though, is that Shale Test is part of a project that has
stagnated. So, even if Shale Test moves forward, it's difficult to
get
traction if the whole project is perceived as stale. Do you see what
I'm
saying?
If there are so many people out there who want to help move Shale Test
forward, then we would love for them to step up and start
contributing. Look at it this way: I use Shale in at least one project
at work, so I have a vested interest in it continuing to work. Now a
whole bunch of people from Project Foo think Shale needs to move
forward and that it can move forward better over at Project Foo.
But I've never seen code from the folks at Project Foo. I don't know
their attitudes or development styles. I don't know how they work with
others. I don't know if they will release it under a license I am
comfortable with. How can I agree in good faith to just hand over the
management of Shale to Project Foo when I don't know these things?
We are commissioned by the ASF to manage the Shale project. You could
make a decent argument that we have not done a very good job of
managing the project. But we cannot recommend to the ASF in good faith
that the best direction for the project is to send it to somebody else
who we don't know.
So that brings us back to this: If people think Shale Test needs to
move forward then I would cordially and sincerely invite them to come
join the dev list and start submitting patches. Point me to the
patches that have not been responded to. Point me to the questions and
requests that are not being answered. When I see that I can begin to
give credibility to your argument that Shale would be better managed
elsewhere.
Just so I am clear: the motive of this post is not to be dramatic or
troll or anything like that. I want to see Shale move forward too. If
the best thing is for it to move elsewhere, then I will be the first
to vote for that. But I can't trust who I don't know. Send those folks
over here and let's engage in some discussion and get some stuff done.
Ok. I'll certainly ping Stan and company. But I think my sentiment is
valid
even if we just move it to MyFaces. That, to me, would make plenty of
sense
because plenty of the MyFaces projects use it.
Well, we have several myfaces committers on the shale project. I'm not
convinced that moving the code there under different package names
would make the bits work better.
Okay. That's a fair point. I'm still concerned about the future of Shale as
a whole -- I guess that's the main issue... Where will things be in a year?
--
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3
* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
--
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3
* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
