I don't think anyone will disagree to a wiki page that shows the organization of the components. So +1 for that.

Also I agree with;

We are all corporately responsible for all of the code, and have freedom to get involved with any of it.

So -1 for stating committer names as the maintainer of each component.

Cagatay

p.s. I'm really getting used to the +1, -1 business :)

On 8/21/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok valid points are risen, that it is not Apache like...
I think a vote on whether we keep the page or not
might be good...
as I said, I wanted to achieve a different purpose
for this, namely to have categorized which
components are dojoized, so that I have it easier
to test after dojo upgrades (hence also
the current maintainers of the components)
but Craig and the others have risen a valid point.
Lets either vote on this, or just do it the wiki
way and remove yourself if you feel out of place
in there.
All I really need is some sort of component categorization
so that I can keep track of things...
I did not want to open a Pandoras box here.


Reply via email to