Jody Garnett ha scritto: > Hi Mathieu: > > I am going to try and turn your email into a proposal as I understand > it. The proposal will need to have a couple of examples in it to > explain to PMC members what it is we are planning to do. I was not > aware of the progress made by the spring source maven repo - > interesting.
I'm reading this thread and wondering where things are heading in terms of responsibilities and work. Don't get me wrong, having an OSGI GeoTools is sure a nice to have (even if only part of the developers would get any benefit from it in the short term), what I'm concerned about is eventual obligations that might arise from this work? Is the proposal going to ask that every module maintainer picks the dependencies only from the Spring repos, or otherwise dependencies that have the proper OSGI meta-files? What if we need a dependency that is not there, must we go and repack it with the proper informations and upload to the OSGEO repository? Put in other terms, I would be personally contrary to add another requirement on the shoulders of the already overworked gt2 developers. I have no problems if the interested parties are going to do the maintenance work necessary to keep gt2 OSGi compatible instead (or if a PMC vote just says so, as the above is just my personal opinion) In any case, the proposal should address this bit some way or the other (the who does what, both in short term, and in the long term maintenance perspective). Cheers Andrea -- Andrea Aime OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
