I share the concerns. But our current model of working - preventing a whole release because one or two projects arent ready yet - has proved unsuccessful, and damaged our reputation.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Markus Zywitza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope we don't shoot our feet with this: > > How to make sure that all projects play along together well? What if AR 1.0 > uses a different DP than MR 1.0 since as a user I'd expect MR 1.0 working > together with AR 1.0. > The best approach would be splitting up the repos and using svn:externals to > released versions of inner-castle dependencies. This however robs us of > making ad-hoc changes to those dependencies. > Other way round, if the infrastructure keeps the same, how can I develop on > AR1.1 without affecting MR 1.0 development? I'll have to branch it to make > breaking changes without forcing MR to use 1.1 trunk. > > If there is a solution to that problem, all s fine. > > And BTW: If no else comes out to play, I volunteer for AR lead. > > -Markus > > > 2008/10/28 hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Sure. Inlines. >> >> > Is everything staying in its place in the current repo or is it going to >> > split there as well? >> >> I'm not sure. For now I think would be simpler to keep things as they are >> now. >> >> > What projects is the split following? I assume (am I missing any?): >> >> All top level projects, and packaging/grouping the others: >> - MonoRail >> - ActiveRecord >> - Windsor >> - Components/Services >> - Facilities >> - DynamicProxy >> >> > MonoRail (are the different engines splitting off?) >> >> I dont think so. >> >> > Have any project leads been selected yet? >> >> Nope. They need to step in. >> >> > Will there be new mailing lists? >> >> Nope. >> >> > Will there be changes on the build system and in the wiki to make this >> > clear? >> >> There might be, but I'm not planning to have something soon. >> >> > Does this mean the Castle Project is becoming the Castle Group (ala the >> > Apache group)? >> >> It always meant to be that. It's always been an umbrella. Til some >> point it was manageable to release everything together. But now we >> lack the resources to continue to do so. >> >> >> > If so, will there be a path for project inclusion to share branding (for >> > example Rhino Mocks could be branded as a part of the Castle Group, >> > meaning the developers share design philosophies and intentions, and >> > perhaps that the projects share some developers)? >> >> I think we can have an incubation process. >> >> > What can we do to help find clear paths to releases for the projects >> > that aren't nearly ready? >> >> Which project isn't nearly ready? >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> hammett >> http://hammett.castleproject.org/ >> >> > > > > > -- Cheers, hammett http://hammett.castleproject.org/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
