On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 21:52 +0200, Werner Punz wrote: > Martin Marinschek schrieb: > > Hi all, > > > > I am -1 for adding another sub-project. > > > > Put this into the sandbox - and use the new code-generator, please, > > and upgrade the existing dojo components to the 1.1 version - > > everything else will make us very unhappy in the end! > > > Well I will move over to the myfaces codegens in the long > run, it just is not my priority for now, > the reason why i have not used them was explained > one was that the new codegen infrastructure was not in place > secondly, I needed something working fast.
Fair enough. I have no problem with that, as long as we don't do a 1.0 release until the build process is sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. > > > as for upgrading the existing components, > planned higher priority than the codegens > but for now I have to stabilize the rest > once this is done and in place I start to move over > the existing components. > > > As for hosting another option would be to host > the project outside of apache until we > have moved everything over and then move it into the sandbox. > I am somewhat not really feeling well to drop it into the sandbox > as long as we dont have moved the old components over > we suddenly have two conflicting dojo versions in the sandbox. I think the word "sandbox" has become a bit confusing now. We have the "tomahawk sandbox", which is a place where components waiting for promotion to tomahawk live. But we also have a number of projects that are still experimental or have not yet got stable enough APIs for general use. These are also "sandbox" projects, just not "the tomahawk sandbox". For example, there is the orchestra sandbox. And I've just sent an email proposing creating a new "sandbox-quality" subproject for orchestra (flow). I see your code as the same: a "sandbox-quality" project. But not part of the "tomahawk sandbox" [1]. So maybe we need a new way to organise these new non-tomahawk sandboxy things. [1] You did say that your current code has some minor dependencies on tomahawk. But (a) hopefully these can be fixed, and (b) anyway, there is no reason why this project cannot have a *dependency* on tomahawk and still not be a "tomahawk sandbox" project. Regards, Simon
