Gerard van Enk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it's necessary to have a commons-main and a commons-sandbox. > Sandbox (indeed the current 'speeltuin') is a place where commitors can > try new ideas, create tools they need, start experiments, etc. Some of > these pieces will survive others will die in the sandbox. The ones that > survive will be promoted to the commons-main. This way if you're > interested in 'living-on-the-edge' code you know where to find it and if > you're only interested in stable code you also know where to find it.
I think for living-on-the-edge code you could use the 'unstable' cvs branch, also for 'applications'. New projects could simply start-out on the right spot to start with. Completely premature code could be put in speeltuin, but I still think it should only be used for confined communications and so on. > > - 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. > > > > Why an alternative? We could use mmapps.sf.net as a starter, but I think > it's best if things like these are on mmbase.org, so people know where > to find it. True, we could link to mmaps.sf.net, but I'd like to have it > somewhere on mmbase.org. Perhaps, but we are risquing having to reimplement sourceforge ourselves then, which I think is a hopeless goal. I don't think it is such a bad idea to utilize sf itself then, for all initiaves the community itself cannot or doesn't want to occupy itself yet. > I think we need to have different kind of commitors, eg core-commitors > and non-core commitors. This way not every commitor has to have inside > knowledge of the core. Perhaps yes. We should think then about how to enforce this in the CVS setup then (I think UNIX security must be used then, so the rights groups/users need be created) Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen Mediapark C101 Hilversum +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US mihxil' [] ()
