I've traditionally done it when asked, but I'm not really tracking the project any more. It'd be good if someone could take over the responsibility.
- Brett On 5 Sep 2014, at 8:21 pm, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@codehaus.org> wrote: > Ben told me that officially it is Brett who is responsible to create Mojo > projects. > Brett, are you always monitoring these tasks ? > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@codehaus.org> > wrote: > I just checked and there are very few admins around Ben Walding to manage > administrative tasks > * Bob McWhirter > * Brett Porter > * Olivier Gaudin > * Stephen Connolly > * and me > > Perhaps this is something to discuss with Ben about Codehaus systems > management ? > Perhaps he may need some help if we consider that the process delay is too > long ... > > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Robert Scholte <codeh...@sourcegrounds.com> > wrote: > Hi, > > If you compare the differences between Apaches PMC and teammembers, then the > difference between a Codehaus despot and teammember is much smaller. > Teammembers already have a lot of rights for the infrastructure[1], > there's no such thing as binding votes. Main difference between a despot and > a teammember is that Xircles gives you extra options to manage users for the > project. So actually you become your own secretary ;) > > The problem Dan was facing won't disappear when we have more despots. So if > we want a new Jira-project, we still depend on Jira Admins. > > Robert > > [1] http://mojo.codehaus.org/development/codehaus-support.html > > Op Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:37:25 +0200 schreef Arnaud Héritier > <aherit...@codehaus.org>: > > > There is something to take care. Being despot doesn't give us the jira > administration privilege required to create new projects. > The thing to do is to ask to Ben if we could have more Jira admins to > create these projects. > > (And yes +1 to have more despots too) > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 for more Depots > > I have been with this project since beginning, will be glad helping out > > Thanks > > -D > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Baptiste Mathus <bapti...@codehaus.org> > wrote: > > I think that if this discussion is raised only because it's difficult to > have a despot create the project in jira, then we may just want to have > more despots. Changing the release process not because it's having an issue > in itself seems wrong to me. > > Like Arnaud, I also think it's a wee bit better to have a dedicated > project when out of pre-release state. > > My 2 cents > Le 3 sept. 2014 10:00, "Arnaud Héritier" <aherit...@codehaus.org> a > écrit : > > I would prefer to have a jira project per mojo when they are stable > AFAIK I'm always despot + jira administrator and can create projects if > you need but don't hesitate to ping me directly because I'm not reading all > mojo MLs threads > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> wrote: > > One problem is that the JIRA URL is on the produced mojo site, so > creating the JIRA project after the release requires a new release to > update the site. > > /Anders > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Correct > > -Dan > > > On Tuesday, September 2, 2014, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> > wrote: > > Not sure what you mean. Do you want to make a 1.0 release without a > mojo specific JIRA project? > > /Anders > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Currently in order for a component to become 1.0, it just have a > Jira project. So far we have a hard time getting depot to manage this > procedure. > > Could we just mangen it like the way Jenkins does with plugin? a > component id is just good enough > > Thanks > > -Dan > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > >
