+1 if we can unify the wiki and issue for Camel and Camel-Extra. The reason which we setup the Camel-Extra project is we cannot host the code of GPL license in Apache. I don't think we cannot add the document or issues into Apache Camel due to that kind of issue.
Any thoughts? On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Henryk Konsek wrote: > > - Using Apache JIRA for Camel extra > > > > For now, I'll keep Camel Extra issues in Google Issue tracker. We > shouldn't have Camel Extra issues spread around two places. However it > will be nice if eventually we could use Jira for that. > > > (- Using Issue notifications on iss...@camel.apache.org > > (mailto:iss...@camel.apache.org) for issues raised > > in Camel extra) > > - Using Commit notifications on comm...@camel.apache.org > > (mailto:comm...@camel.apache.org) for changes in > > Camel extra > > > > Yeah, since from the developer point of view it doesn't matter if > somebody commits to Regular Camel or Extra Camel. > > > - Using the Apache Confluence WIKI for Camel extra components > > IMHO This is a must. We need uniform documentation format for all > Camel stuff. I can't imagine redirecting end users to another > documentation site. > > Camel by nature integrates technologies with various licenses. If we > make non-Apache components a second class citizens, will be a > second-class integration framework when it comes to non-Apache > software. And Mule users will laugh at us :) . > > -- > Henryk Konsek > http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com
