About UserVoice, my idea was not to duplicate every issue there.
Rather do what StackOverflow, or AnkhSVN teams did. They use UserVoice 
as a place where users can suggest and vote for and comment on new 
features. IIRC it does not even require you to create an account to vote 
to suggest a feature. It's interface is also very readable. You can 
instantly see what features are most popular or requested. AFAIK there's 
no such functionality in Donjon (at least yet). So, the way I see it, 
Donjon would stay as issue tracker, and UserVoice would be low friction 
tool for people to gether feedback and ideas.

Krzysztof

Jonathon Rossi pisze:
> UserVoice looks interesting. The only problem is that it does 
> duplicate what we store in donjon and since anyone can create issues 
> in donjon it partially voids the need for another ideas tracking 
> system. I think donjon just needs to be fixed up so that it emails the 
> mailing list for new and changed issues like JIRA used to do.
>
> +1 for dropping the 2 in the assembly name as we move forward.
>
> I don't know if the current source repository layout is going to work 
> very well, because tags and branches really need to be at the project 
> level not at the repository root, we also need to move the 
> documentation into the project. Hammett, do you have any plans for 
> changing the repository layout?
>
> For example:
> /Tools/Castle.DynamicProxy2/trunk
>   /src
>   /doc
>   /lib
>
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Krzysztof Koźmic 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>     How about creating UserVoice.com page for DP and gather ideas
>     there. I think it would work better than discussion group, and
>     more people would use it.
>     Also +1 on calling new version v2.1
>
>     Also, since AFAIR only IBatis facility still uses DP1 in whole
>     Castle project, how about calling the dll DynamicProxy.dll instead
>     of DynamicProxy2.dll
>     Krzysztof
>
>     Jonathon Rossi pisze:
>>     2.1 sounds good, it avoids confusion.
>>
>>     So what do we want in 2.1 and what should be deferred to 2.2?
>>
>>     On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM, hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         I'd vote for 2.1
>>         2.0 is very stable.
>>
>>         On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Jonathon Rossi
>>         <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>         > Since you can't actually download a final/GA/RTM of DP 2.0,
>>         should we call
>>         > it 2.0? Or would you prefer to jump to 2.1?
>>         >
>>         > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:28 PM, hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>         <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>         >>
>>         >> Yep, that's what we are trying to fix :-)
>>         >>
>>         >> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Jonathon Rossi
>>         <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>         >> > I thought that was just an RC of 2.0. It is hard to tell
>>         what version
>>         >> > all
>>         >> > the different projects were at with RC3.
>>         >> >
>>         >> > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM, hammett
>>         <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>         >> >>
>>         >> >> AFAIC DP2 was released on the last RC. So you're
>>         looking into 2.1 or
>>         >> >> 2.0.1
>>         >> >>
>>         >> >> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Jonathon Rossi
>>         <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>>         >> >> wrote:
>>         >> >> > I just created a roadmap page on confluence with the
>>         open issues from
>>         >> >> > donjon
>>         >> >> > for DynamicProxy:
>>         >> >> > http://using.castleproject.org/display/Tools/DynamicProxy
>>         >> >> >
>>         >> >> > I looks like some of the open issues aren't issues
>>         anymore, so we
>>         >> >> > need
>>         >> >> > to
>>         >> >> > close a few off. I'd also assume we don't want to
>>         make changes to
>>         >> >> > DynamicProxy 1.x anymore.
>>         >> >> >
>>         >> >> > What does everyone think needs to be fixed/added to
>>         DynamicProxy 2.x
>>         >> >> > to
>>         >> >> > be
>>         >> >> > able to get to a releasable 2.0?
>>         >> >> >
>>         >> >> > --
>>         >> >> > Jonathon Rossi
>>         >> >> >
>>         >> >> > >
>>         >> >> >
>>         >> >>
>>         >> >>
>>         >> >>
>>         >> >> --
>>         >> >> Cheers,
>>         >> >> hammett
>>         >> >> http://hammett.castleproject.org/
>>         >> >>
>>         >> >>
>>         >> >
>>         >> >
>>         >> >
>>         >> > --
>>         >> > Jonathon Rossi
>>         >> >
>>         >> > >
>>         >> >
>>         >>
>>         >>
>>         >>
>>         >> --
>>         >> Cheers,
>>         >> hammett
>>         >> http://hammett.castleproject.org/
>>         >>
>>         >>
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > --
>>         > Jonathon Rossi
>>         >
>>         > >
>>         >
>>
>>
>>
>>         --
>>         Cheers,
>>         hammett
>>         http://hammett.castleproject.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Jonathon Rossi
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jonathon Rossi
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to