On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see from the commit list that a new JSF2.0 branch has been created.
which is good. > > I don't remember seeing *any* kind of discussion or even announcement about > this. While I am happy to see JSF2.0 work going on, this kind of approach > does not seem to be at all in the "community" spirit. IMO, major events like > this should be discussed beforehand. hrm, I was active on this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg32651.html > > One issue, for example, is that the core-1.2 stuff is currently > half-way-converted from the trinidad plugins to the myfaces-builder-plugin. > So now it is branched, any changes need to be applied in two places. that is true, but I think we can live with it. > > In addition, a large amount of code has just been committed by someone > (slessard) who is not a particularly regular contributor to myfaces. Where > did this code come from? Do we need a code grant for it? Note that when code he is part of the Trinidad project; And it was already mentioned that some "offline" developments are OK. Remember the discussion with Werner's dojo extensions for Tomahawk ? > is developed iteratively on the dev list then there is no need for a grant. > But a sudden code dump is different, even when contributed by someone who > has signed a CLA. in Werner's case it was not (at least that's what I remember from the discussion) > > And with 3 branches to now maintain, we need to discuss whether and when we > phase out maintenance of the jsf-1.1 branch. Currently when users provide > patches in jira, they almost always provide a patch against only one version > and the committer ports it, which does increase the load on existing > committers. When do we stop asking committers to do this when patching bugs? Why not putting JSF 1.1 to maintain stage; Do some more JSF 1.2 releases (like Leo is planing to do) and keep the JSF 2.0 "active". even if we need to re-branch (or need to apply some other (plugin related) changes > > To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and > appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed > implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that "community is > more important than code", and the "community" aspect here seems to have > been rather neglected... Ok, we did a small discussion on that. The code he added is listed in the JavaDoc, from the spec... I think we are fine here. -Matthias > > Regards, > Simon > > -- Matthias Wessendorf Need JSF and Web 2.0? http://code.google.com/p/facesgoodies further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
