Gerard van Enk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please tell us what you think about the document and about this subject.
I think the document is quite lucid. I would drop the notion of
'mmbase commons', becasue I think any mmbase applications should be reusable
in some way, so there need not be any distinction there. It would also
simplify matters because there are essentially only to kind of 'applications'
left then:
- community applications ('supported')
- third party application ('unsupported')
I think by 'sandbox' the current 'speeltuin' is meant, which can remain to
exist without any status, or mentioning in this document. Perhaps it could
be mentioned in the guide-lines as a privilege of commitors ('commitors may
use 'speeltuin' cvs module for MMBase related stuff, which has no status' or
so)
I'm not sure what to say about chapter 3 about infrastructure.
I would perhaps suggest this
- supported application use tools of mmbase.org
- third party apps can either:
- use 'speeltuin' if the app is a private thing of one of the commitors
This option might be ignored in the document, because see above.
- or use mmapps.sourceforge.net. I suggest we mention this initiative as
clearly as possible. Because we promote a clear alternative for being on
mmbase.org itself then.
- if a third party app will be adopted by the community soon, it might not
be wrong to avoid rigidity and e.g. offer CVS hosting in the mmbase.org
repository in an early stage.
Michiel
--
Michiel Meeuwissen
Mediapark C101 Hilversum
+31 (0)35 6772979
nl_NL eo_XX en_US
mihxil'
[] ()
