I fail to follow the reasoning. There are plenty of camel components
hosted by other open source projects, various individual github users
and even by commercial companies.
What does project governance have to do with anything? Bonus question:
is your expectation that Apache Camel would be a one stop shop for all
things Camel?
Hint [1] (first two sentences). Camel-extra is not covered and not
governed the same way.
Hadrian
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/
On 09/26/2012 03:19 AM, 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 for issues raised
in Camel extra)
- Using Commit notifications on 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 :) .
