Monday, June 27, 2016, 8:24:21 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote: > I should
I meant "It should". > support adding arbitrary templates. As I imagine it, there > would be an "Add template" button, and when you press it, it adds an > extra text area, which has a template name input, an "auto import" > checkbox, and an "auto include" checkbox, and a "Remove template" > button over it. Another thing... we should add an "Incompatible improvements" dropdown after the existing ones, which preselects the value of Configuration.getVersion(). > Monday, June 27, 2016, 7:24:19 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> >> Cool.. I will start with adding the extra template name thing to >> the online template tester. (#import and #include) . I would need >> more pointers on the same. How have you visualised the same. >> Meaning , How the users can import other templates, we will give >> provision to add other templates or we have some predefined >> templates loaded , so that they can import the same ? >> >> >> >> Pradeep. >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:02:38 PM >> To: Pradeep Murugesan >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Graduation issues >> >> Happy to see you back! >> >> There are things to do, of course. >> >> I haven't yet merged in your contribution with XML siblings (so it >> won't be in 2.3.25 - sorry about that, next time), and AFAIR there >> were some wrinkles to work on. >> >> I have done some of the planned improvements on >> http://freemarker-online.kenshoo.com/ (mostly to draw attention to the >> outputFormat setting of 2.3.24), but there are other things to do. >> Apart from what was discussed earlier, I think supporting adding extra >> templates with names would be handy, because then people can play >> around with #import and #include. >> >> And then of course, there's http://freemarker.org/contribute.html with >> even more things to do. >> >> >> Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 12:27:01 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >> >>> Hi Daniel & team, >>> >>> >>> Sorry that I was dormant for a long time after a very short tent >>> @ Freemaker. I am out of some critical issues and have some bandwidth from >>> now on. >>> >>> >>> Kindly let me know if there is anything I could help. >>> >>> >>> Pradeep. >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:48:55 AM >>> To: Sergio Fernández >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Graduation issues >>> >>> I think we can start some discussion about that even now. Or at least >>> I will tell what do I think about the state of the project. >>> >>> The main problem is the number of active developers, which is 1, me. >>> What if I'm hit by a truck tomorrow? We can hope that if there's a bug >>> that concerns many, then someone will eventually fix it. After all the >>> owner (ASF) won't be gone, the release infrastructure is there, etc. >>> But as far as non-bugfix development goes, it's certain that things >>> would stop. Some may say that that's OK for a project that's >>> backward-compatibility-locked for 12 years now (the 2.x line is >>> actually 14 years old). But of course that's just slow death if a >>> project can't counter its old design problems and can't evolve to >>> tackle new problems anymore. So indeed 2.x should switch to >>> maintenance eventually (but ATM there are still things that can be >>> done in 2.x), but only to give place for 3.x. Anyway, how to catch >>> long standing developers? I don't think that 2.x have a real chance >>> for that, because of all the legacy code burden piled up. (Some Apache >>> projects have many paid contributors, but I think FM isn't the kind of >>> project that can have that, so it's important that the developers want >>> to fiddle with it for free.) So the 3.x jump will be necessary, and >>> then, maybe, we can have a developer base growth (template engines >>> isn't hot topic anymore, so I just mean having a few developers >>> around). But 3.x is far away (if it will happen at all), and we can't >>> hang around in the incubator forever. So, do you believe there's any >>> chance to graduate with the current developer base? >>> >>> >>> Monday, June 13, 2016, 8:15:11 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote: >>> >>>> Besides the technical discussion for 2.3.25-incubating, after that release >>>> you may start to discuss a possible graduation. We have to discuss many >>>> aspects (specially growth of the community), but technically speaking the >>>> podling is capable os casting releases. >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> Daniel Dekany >>> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Daniel Dekany >> > -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany
