Re: Gump changes

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Costin Manolache wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>I don't like it to move under Jakarta Commons...
>
> Can you give any reasons for that ?

See below...

>>Probably ATM simply moving the codebase to its own gump CVS repo and
>>make its own mailing list would solve this handily, since we remain ATM
>>under Jakarta but move out of the Alexandria skin.
>
>
> The problem is growing its commmunity and improving a bit the code
> and usability.
>
> The reason I proposed jakarta-commons is that it's the best place
> where this can happen. If Sam is not afraid of losing control over
> gump ( which may happen in j-c ), than I can't see any reason to
> not have it in j-c.

Of course this is just MHO, I am not going to vote on this thing, since
I don't feel entitled to, because of my minimal code involvement with Gump.

I recall Sam having problems about changes in Ant that broke his builds,
and thus the creation of Gump (http://jakarta.apache.org/gump/why.html) ... I smell that this will bring the same problems, but if Sam is ok...

If users would just show interest and some patches, they would easily become committers, and I fail to see why moving the code round will help this involvement.

>>>>A solution would be to make two repos: gump and gump-repos, and have
>>>>gump-repos open to all *Apache* committers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why? You can already host descriptors outside of Gump's control.
>>
>>The descriptors were initially all in the Gump repo for better control
>>and cross-project check.
>>
>>Making a common repo would continue this tentative, while not
>>relinquishing control of the whole Gump codebase to people that could
>>start bashing (am I being too defensive here?)
>
> Is 'relinquishing' control a problem ?

Could be.

> If the 'bashing' results in
> finding problems and improving gump - or even increasing awarness -
> then it's should be welcomed.

Of course. *If*

There is a "competing" Gump project called Maven (which started in Gump
BTW).
Maven developers have access to j-c.
Gump developers don't have access to Maven.

It's the same reason why Maven developer would not want Maven moved
under j-c.

Will this make Maven work nicer with Gump while not assimilating it?
Could be a deal.
If not, I wouldn't like it... but hey, this is where I'm being
defensive, maybe I'm just plain wrong.

>>As a start though I'd probably keep things as is, and suggest all
>>committers that ask the descriptor to be patched to move it to their
>>codebase and have it administered. Probably.
>
> I think the real issue is where to host gump's code - i.e. the xslt and
> java code.

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:alexandria-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:alexandria-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>