On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Sean Schofield wrote:
I think we are talking about a "sandbox" such as the one used by commons. You do not have to be an ASF committer to commit to the sandbox but you need to be a committer to start a new sandbox project (I think I have that right.) That could be a good way to encourage new contributions.
Erm, no. You *must* be an ASF committer to be able to commit to any ASF repository. The rule for the Commons Sandbox is that any existing ASF committer can request commit access, but you still have to have earned commit privileges elsewhere in the ASF first.
-- Martin Cooper
I still think we are getting a little bit ahead of ourselves with some of these discussions. There's no harm in discussing these ideas (which are all very interesting) but we still have some basics to take care of. There is the issue of the next release (I noticed nobody has voted on this yet), the lack of documentation, the mailing list and cvs migration (from incubator-myfaces) to (myfaces), nighthly builds and the lack of a formalized release process.
I know none of these outstanding issues is very exciting but we should probably get a few things in order before going very far with new proposals. This is not to discourage discussion on these matters, just a friendly reminder :-)
sean
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:18:08 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My only comment is to remind people that the ASF and SourceForge are quite different in the way they work. The ASF is a meritocracy, while SF tends to be more of a free-for-all. The relevance of this to a component repository is that just because someone shows up at MyFaces with a new component doesn't mean that they can necessarily get it added. It would depend on whether or not they have a history with the project, and whether the existing community deems that they have sufficient merit to be invited to join - or whether existing committers are willing to take responsibility for the component themselves. Of course, SF *can* work this way as well. It's just not required to do so.
I like the Struts way and their *incubator* on SF :-) Some of the inventions that were placed their migrated after a period into the core of Struts.
So why not having such a thing for something like "Apache Faces"? Components from encouraged users could first integrated into a SF project, and may come into Apache Faces Components...
Just a thought,
Sure, time is also a factor for that. But perhaps it is worth to think about something like that!
-Matthias
So basically you need to decide how you want a central repository to work before you can decide whether it should live at the ASF as part of MyFaces, or live somewhere else such as SourceForge.
-- Martin Cooper
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kito D. Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Virtua, Inc. (phone: 203-323-1244 fax: 203-323-2363) Author, JavaServer Faces in Action (<http://www.manning.com/mann/index.html>http://www.manning.com/mann/index.html)
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
"Existence doesn't necessarily mean living..."
-- Matthias We�endorf Aechterhoek 18 DE-48282 Emsdetten Germany phone: +49-2572-9170275 cell phone: +49-179-1118979 email: matzew AT apache DOT org url: http://www.wessendorf.net callto://mwessendorf (Skype) icq: 47016183
