On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Chris Geer [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] > >Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:44 PM > >To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > >Subject: Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement > > > >On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: > > > >> Hi Chris, > >> > >> it has been more quiet indeed on the mailinglist, but there is still a > lot > >> of development going on. We now have 2 branches and a sandbox for the > >model > >> split, MongoDB and content services. I hope they will merge into trunk > >> soon, so it's more visible that new functionality is developed, and it > will > >> decrease the chance of merge problems. > > > > > >You are right, maybe "momentum" was the wrong word choice. Maybe > >collaboration would have been better. I'm with you, I look forward to > >getting some of these major overhauls integrated. Just in time for the > next > >round of major overhauls :) > > What fun is having code that we don't get to rewrite to make it better :)
True. Next small tweak is multi-tenancy :) > > BTW, early indications on the Mongo effort are positive. I should have > some comparison numbers at ApacheCon. > > > > >> > >> On 25 October 2012 18:55, Raminderjeet Singh > ><[email protected] <javascript:;><javascript:;> > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Chris for taking a lead to identify the problems with Rave > >> > activities and Roadmap. I think everyone will agree with you here. I > >> admit > >> > that i missed your email Model Split email. We have requirements where > >we > >> > want to customize user model so i will take a look at the branch this > >> week. > >> > I volunteer for the feedback. > >> > > >> > My 2 cents on development activity is we need to set some Roadmap for > >> Rave > >> > 1.0( a wish list). We should not keep going with 0.xx. That will bring > >> > everyone back with their choices about Rave 1.0. We can setup some > >> > developer hackathon using Google hangout etc between now and > >ApacheCon. > >> We > >> > made a great presence in ApacheCon 2011. We need to do the same for > >> > ApacheCon 13. ApacheCon can be set as a milestone for Rave 1.0 (just > an > >> > idea). To achieve that milestone community need to start talk about > 1.0 > >> and > >> > document it on wiki [1]. We need to expand on little details on > >> > architecture documents also for new users to start. > >> > > >> > >> The next ApacheCon starts in 10 days ;) Unfortunately I can't be there, > but > >> would love to join a hangout in one of the evenings. I know some of the > >> other Rave committers will be there. > >> > >> Jasha > >> > >> > >> > > >> > I agree with Ross that we can better spend time implementing than > >> > documenting but have a wish list for 1.0 can give a better direction > to > >> the > >> > community. > >> > > >> > 1. http://wiki.apache.org/rave/RoadMap > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > Raminder > >> > > >> > On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> > > >> > > I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you > >> > > surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below. > >> > > > >> > > In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet > >> > > periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual > gets > >> > > busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions. > >> > > > >> > > I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a > PMC. A > >> > > projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at > that > >> > > point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers > >> > > important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being > >> > > said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of > >> > > the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the > >> > > home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was > defined > >> > > during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the > "future" > >> > > list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home > >> > > page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the > >> > > time (and still am). > >> > > > >> > > If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you > think > >> > > is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for > >> > > it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll > >> > > probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my > >> > > personal agenda. > >> > > > >> > > Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy > >> > > consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed > >your > >> > > mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or > >> > > tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting > your > >> > > recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly > review). > >> > > If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge > then > >> > > post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is > >> > > good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it > >> > > back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review. > >>
