Yep, that's what I was thinking of.
Regards, ~ Simon On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Simon Lessard > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think you can only assign tickets to known contributors, that is JIRA > > users with some special permissions, which is not the case for some > people > > on my team. > > correct. > > > Of course, in the best world, assigning the ticket to yourself and mark > it > > as "In progress" would be the best way to prevent clashes. > > perhaps adding a comment, like "I started to look at it" would help? > -M > > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Matthias Wessendorf < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Sent from my iPod. > >> Am 29.08.2008 um 01:53 schrieb "Simon Lessard" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> Ok, > >> > >> The branch is now compiling and TODOs of the following format were > placed > >> in the newly created methods : // TODO: JSF 2.0 #xx > >> > >> We also created a JIRA ticket of every of those TODOs, so if you feel > like > >> trying one, you can add a comment in JIRA saying that you're taking the > >> ticker. Before taking a ticket, make sure that no one else is currently > >> working on it to prevent clashes. > >> > >> That's why you can assign tickets. > >> > >> The next step on my side is to add more TODOs for the updated methods > and > >> create a JIRA ticket for them, then I'll get to coding myself. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> ~ Simon > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Simon Lessard < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thank :) Although give me 10 minutes or so to fix something stupid I > did > >>> before doing a checkout. > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> ~ Simon > >>> > >>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Hazem Saleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thank you Simon. I will join this soon. > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Simon Lessard > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Bruno, > >>>>> > >>>>> So far my planing was: > >>>>> > >>>>> sequential > >>>>> 1. Create all new API classes: done > >>>>> 2. Add all new methods to the API, with empty TODO: JSF 2.0 comment > in > >>>>> their body when they aren't abstract: in progress and I already found > some > >>>>> strange stuff that I might raise on the EG group discussions as for > why > >>>>> Application.getResourceHandler isn't abstract while all other get > handler > >>>>> methods are: in progress > >>>>> > >>>>> *** At that point, IMPL will no longer compile *** > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. Add the missing signature in IMPL with empty TODO: JSF 2.0 comment > >>>>> in their body > >>>>> > >>>>> *** Everything should compile but don't work at all *** > >>>>> > >>>>> parallel > >>>>> 4. Modify the build plugin to include jsf 2.0 changes > >>>>> 5. Implement the API changes > >>>>> 6. Implement the IMPL changes > >>>>> 7. Implement the JS library > >>>>> > >>>>> I would really like to use Facelets code when required, but we'll > have > >>>>> to make sure it's alright with legal discuss first I think, I'm not > well > >>>>> versed enough in this kind of very specific issues. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's a very high level roadmap, We should probably use much finer > >>>>> granularity for point 5 to 7, but I'm not there yet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> ~ Simon > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Aranda < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am willing (as always) to contribute as much as my time permits to > >>>>>> the JSF 2.0 implementation. I tried to find in the list what is > going to be > >>>>>> the big picture, the roadmap to have a JSF 2.0 implementation. Do we > have > >>>>>> something like that? How are we going to integrate Facelets, for > instance? > >>>>>> (good that is now under ASL!). What part are you developing at the > moment? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bruno > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2008/8/28 Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Simon Lessard > >>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Matthias Wessendorf > >>>>>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Simon Lessard > >>>>>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> >> > Hi Simon, > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Simon Kitching > >>>>>>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>> >> > wrote: > >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> I see from the commit list that a new JSF2.0 branch has been > >>>>>>> >> >> created. > >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> 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. > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > As mentioned by other people, there was a vote about this a > >>>>>>> >> > while back . > >>>>>>> >> > Why > >>>>>>> >> > did I create it just now? Simply because my company agreed to > >>>>>>> >> > provide > >>>>>>> >> > some > >>>>>>> >> > resource to help with the implementation and we were ready to > >>>>>>> >> > get > >>>>>>> >> > started. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> One might ask here for a CCLA ;-) > >>>>>>> >> We did that for Oracle way back, and update once in a while all > >>>>>>> >> the > >>>>>>> >> contributors, > >>>>>>> >> that have signed the iCLA. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Yeah, but Fujistu signed a CCLA already when I became commiter, > so > >>>>>>> > that's a > >>>>>>> > non issue as well. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> good. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> 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. > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > To be honest, I find this irrelevant, it's a branch, not a > trunk > >>>>>>> >> > and > >>>>>>> >> > I'll > >>>>>>> >> > most likely do some branch merging when core 1.2.x get release > >>>>>>> >> > and the > >>>>>>> >> > plugin might have to change a little to support jsfVersion > 2.0. > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> In addition, a large amount of code has just been committed > by > >>>>>>> >> >> someone > >>>>>>> >> >> (slessard) who is not a particularly regular contributor to > >>>>>>> >> >> myfaces. > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > I see even less relevance in that statement. > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> Where did this code come from? Do we need a code grant for > it? > >>>>>>> >> >> Note > >>>>>>> >> >> that > >>>>>>> >> >> when code 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. > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > The code was coded just yesterday by me and is not much at > all, > >>>>>>> >> > creating > >>>>>>> >> > missing classes for the JavaDoc change log is in no matter a > >>>>>>> >> > large > >>>>>>> >> > amount in > >>>>>>> >> > term of complexity. Also since I was the only author of it (my > >>>>>>> >> > teammates > >>>>>>> >> > will wait until I have added the signatures). There's > absolutely > >>>>>>> >> > no need > >>>>>>> >> > of > >>>>>>> >> > code grant either. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> I agree on the code grant, b/c of it is really pretty trivial to > >>>>>>> >> create those API classes/interfaces > >>>>>>> >> (based on the javadoc log, as I said before). > >>>>>>> >> @signatures: you mean the iCLA / CCLA, aren't you ? > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > nah, I meant method signatures, it will be easier for my > teammates > >>>>>>> > to know > >>>>>>> > what they have to do once there's a nice // TODO: Convert to JSF > >>>>>>> > 2.0 added > >>>>>>> > in every new method's body. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > As far as I understand the legal issues (might have to fallback > to > >>>>>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] though), they won't need a CLA until they > become > >>>>>>> > commiters. > >>>>>>> > I don't know if I should have the company add their names to the > >>>>>>> > CCLA > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> no. wrong > >>>>>>> cla == contributor license agreement. > >>>>>>> I usually ask for that after one or two patches. Never been an > issue > >>>>>>> at all. > >>>>>>> We (from ORA) add those contributors to our CCLA, and fax the > update > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>> Sam Ruby (our ASF secretary). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > however. Technically, we aren't bound contractualy by any > >>>>>>> > intellectual > >>>>>>> > property transfer with my employer and we're developping outside > >>>>>>> > normal > >>>>>>> > business hours so we aren't directly paid either for it so I > don't > >>>>>>> > know if > >>>>>>> > adding their name to the CCLA is even needed or not. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> that means, what you develop on your sparetime is yours... NO CCLA > >>>>>>> update > >>>>>>> required. Cool > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Matthias > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > ~ Simon > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> 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? > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > I can take care of the branch merging, this is how we handled > >>>>>>> >> > the > >>>>>>> >> > trinidad > >>>>>>> >> > 1.2 branch at first, Adam would do the merging every now and > >>>>>>> >> > then, so > >>>>>>> >> > I'm > >>>>>>> >> > not asking the committers to do some extra work. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work > >>>>>>> >> there, on the branch. > >>>>>>> >> If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> 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... > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > I don't agree at all here. Although it wasn't announced on the > >>>>>>> >> > dev list, > >>>>>>> >> > the > >>>>>>> >> > JIRA ticket created to attach patches was speciafically for > the > >>>>>>> >> > community. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> and the branch creation was also discussed. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > Code provided by Fujitsu employees will never go through me > with > >>>>>>> >> > direct > >>>>>>> >> > commit, it will all be added as patches, even extra tests and > >>>>>>> >> > documentation > >>>>>>> >> > as we want them and everyone else willing to help get the > credit > >>>>>>> >> > for it. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> we do the same. Folks provide patches and jira tickets to > describe > >>>>>>> >> the > >>>>>>> >> problem. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > Furthermore, I personally didn't announce it because the > branch > >>>>>>> >> > will be > >>>>>>> >> > very > >>>>>>> >> > instable for a week or two until we finish adding the missing > >>>>>>> >> > signatures > >>>>>>> >> > (impl might not even always compile). > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> dev@ is a developers community; so that would be fine :-) > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> -Matthias > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > If community wasn't important in the process we would just > have > >>>>>>> >> > used a > >>>>>>> >> > private repository at Fujitsu, worked on it for some time with > >>>>>>> >> > my team, > >>>>>>> >> > then > >>>>>>> >> > commit some very large amount of code (real large) that would > >>>>>>> >> > have > >>>>>>> >> > needed a > >>>>>>> >> > code grant, prevented the people to see at what rythm things > >>>>>>> >> > were > >>>>>>> >> > progressing and contributing. The only point I *could* give > you > >>>>>>> >> > here is > >>>>>>> >> > that > >>>>>>> >> > maybe I should have annouced the creation directly on the dev > >>>>>>> >> > list and > >>>>>>> >> > point > >>>>>>> >> > on the JIRA ticket and SVN url rather than relying only on > JIRA > >>>>>>> >> > ticket > >>>>>>> >> > report that get forwarded on the dev list. > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > Regards, > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > ~ Simon > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> 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 > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed > >>>> http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog > >>>> > >>>> [Web 2.0] GMaps Integration with JSF + Apache Tomahawk + JBoss a4j : > >>>> http://code.google.com/p/gmaps4jsf/ > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > 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 >
