(taken to general@)
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> I took Brian off this distribution so not to take his time until we have a
> final response for him. I just went looking for our prior discussions.
> Summarizing the prior discussions with this one, we have:
>
> Mailing lists:
>
> pmc@ (exists)
> general@ (exists)
> mailet-dev@
> mailet-user@
> cvs@
> --- hold off migration for now ---
> server-dev@ <- james-dev@
> server-user@ <- james-user@
>
> Danny is wondering about server-cvs@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wouldn't that also
> imply mailet-cvs@, too? I'm not sure if we really need more than one
> notification list, although I'm open to the discussion.
>
> CVS Modules:
>
> james-server <- jakarta-james (everything)
> james-site <- Danny will populate as we change build process
> james-mailet <- "--------------------------------------------"
>
> Danny would do those CVS changes because he said that he knew how to move
> files between modules without losing their history. James Committers would
> get access to all modules. Nicola Ken would get access to site if/when we
> switch to Forest.
>
>
>>PRIOR, to let people check-in pending changes before cvs hell begins.
>
>
> That's why I asked. :-)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Anyway, if we're agreed on creating mailing lists:
>
> mailet-dev@
> mailet-user@
> cvs@
>
> and CVS modules
>
> james-server <- jakarta-james (everything)
> james-site <- empty
> james-mailet <- empty
>
> as the current action items, I'm good with it. If there is a way for Brian
> to change the existing mailing lists addresses without breaking eyebrowse,
> that's fine. Perhaps setup server-[dev|[EMAIL PROTECTED] as aliases
> for the existing names?
>
> We should also setup our download page(s). The Ant project has done a very
> nice job, and I just looked at how they did the CGI files. Seems trivially
> easy. I'll have to see if there are necessary changes, but I did a
> download.xml in December.
>
> Serge, I'll leave you to submit the official request, so that we don't give
> Brian conflicting requests.
>
> --- Noel
>
This list seems pretty good. I would agree with Danny about having CVS messages go to a per-project (when not sent to the appropriate dev list), so instead of cvs@, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think there should be a mailing list for site, that would include discussion and CVS commits for now. Does site-dev@ sound reasonable for that?
Also for james-mailet CVS project, mailet-dev@ and mailet-user@, I would like to have a subproject proposal for this before we create these. My concern is we create (mainly the module) without clear ownership or responsibility in place, and we'd start having lots of discussions and some submissions without being ready to handle them correctly. Think of how Linux has some SCO owned code, and then divide the magnitude by a 100. :)
So my preferred list would be:
Email pmc@ [exists] general@ [exists] site-dev@ [new] server-dev@ [was [EMAIL PROTECTED] server-user@ [was [EMAIL PROTECTED] server-cvs@ [was james-cvs@ or is this new?]
CVS james-server [was jakarta-james] james-site [Danny will populate as we change build process]
-- Serge Knystautas President Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
