On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Henrik <[email protected]> wrote: > That's not a decision, it's a question that I'm answering. I see no > deadline in that question, to answer, and I have other work to do as > well than to read every e-mail that you send, in fact.
That's true for all of us. I've spend most of my saturday to get this done. > First of all which I think is the worst actually, is the renaming of > the repo that invalidates ALL incoming links to it online... Bad for > search engines, bad for everyone. It's been done to make us more effective and we were aware of the drawbacks. > Secondly, unless we on top of the 'merge' also work out a method of > branching and stick to that branching method really well, I might be > affected by Windsor changes in ways I might not want to be. That's up for all of you to discuss with the team and set up. > Thirdly, I consider Castle.Transactions as well as Castle.IO top level > projects on their own, because they should be from a marketing > perspective as well as that they *are* from a technical perspective. > If you want to put AutoTx as a facility to Windsor; I'm fine with that > -- it depends on Windsor, but Castle.IO and Castle.Transactions don't > have any dependencies on Windsor and I'm even thinking about removing > the dependency on Castle.Core (fully doable). > Fourthly, marketing again, it would look better to have these as > separate repositories. > Fithly, if you merge them like that you are also forced to give access > to non-castle committers; Seb and Roy which are to have access to the > Castle.IO project - you haven't agreed to this, but it would be the > case for the IO project which I control, as opposed to the Windsor > project which is "less mine". Well, I'm may be missing the point here. You took over Castle.Transaction and forked it on your own. You gave access to non-committers, and you asked it to be included in the merge two days ago. You also created another project under the castle umbrella without our consent and control it under your own repos - at the same time you want the home page to link to it... I'm not sure of what to make of all of this, but my suggestion is that if you want to have full control over your projects, then make them your project and cut the link. You're a valuable contributor and I appreciate your domain expertise on these spaces, but these discussions are everything but productive. That said, if you want to continue to be under the castle umbrella then you'll have to invest time to make your valid points and persuade people on why you think your proposal/idea/suggestion are right, and by that I mean that "Further, I haven't agreed to it." isn't really effective. Finally, I'd be fine reverting this particular merge, provided that miscommunications like this wont happen again. I'd also like to hear other input on this topic. > Further, it makes for larger downloads from git which I might not want > to have my users go through. > Further, I haven't agreed to it. Our project bylaws define that we need majority approval, not everybody's approval. -- 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.
