On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 03:11:45PM -0700, Will Hartung wrote: > Taking lounge as an example, if Couch intends to offer "lounge > capability" as a first class service, and, in the end, obsolete > lounge, then the decision needs to be made whether to "incorporate and > absorb" lounge, or, effectively, "compete against" lounge. > > Making it a 'sub project', leads more towards the former "incorporate" > option. If it intends to compete, then, clearly, lounge has no formal > place within the project. > > Mind, even if lounge in its current incarnation goes against the way > "most folks" would want to eventually see lounge-like capability > implemented in couch (i.e. native erlang rather than a bolted on, > external service, or whatever), incorporating the existing project > with the intent towards incorporation helps funnel the energy and more > formally direct the effort.
I think that this might form a nice guiding principal: All sub-projects will eventually be merged into CouchDB, or abandoned. Are there any flaws to this approach? Thanks, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
