On 4/26/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section, > currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework. What I would like > to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale. And > sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that > should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project... > might it be mixed signals before that time?
The term "subproject" doesn't mean a lot. There is only one PMC and one set of committers and one dev list. It's not unusual for there to be multiple lines of development for a product. We are doing that right now with Action 1.2 and 1.3.x When Action2 comes down from the incubator, it would make sense to me to list it under frameworks, so the list would be Action1, Action2, and Shale. I hadn't thought about it, but I expect that's what we would have done anyway.. We did much the same during the 1.1 death march. There was a branch of the site for 1.0 and another for 1.1. Later, we reverted to the usual practice where the website reflects the head of the nightly build. Likewise, we have full copies of the 1.2 websites posted too. If Action1 continues to move forward, then, sure, people could continue to update its area of the website. But, I think the best way to think of Action1 and Action2 is just that: version 1.x and version 2.x. Action2 is the new and improved Action1. It's similar in a lot of ways, and different in others ways, but 2.0 versions are often like that. We *always* said that 2.x would be a revolution, and that's what we got. -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
