On 4 Feb 2004, at 11:32, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: ...in short, I would say it as
... charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to automatic project artifact creation in order to promote stronger integration between the various codebases and between the codebase and the communities that maintain it.
Nice.
Thanks.
But Gump also makes stats and someone proposed javadocs (ala defunct alexandria).
Yes
Would that count as "artifact",
yes, that's the goal. We should aim to keep the charter the biggest possible, but without betting too big. Artifact is *anything* that we can automatically produce that can help in the direction of integration between codebases or communities.
should we scrap the idea, or should we say something like "related to automatic project artifact and documentation creation"?
Or maybe simply put: " ... charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software that promotes stronger integration between the various codebases and between the codebase and the communities that maintain it. "
Of this last version I like the fact that it emphasises the "integration" part (and in fact brings us back to the simpler but undefined "continuous integration").
I believe that nightlies are also now part of it, as in the "between the codebase and the communities" part.
I like it, but the board might not since it's a little too general. the "creation of artifacts" defined the scope, but still keeping it big enough.
Don't know, either way I'm cool with it. What do others think?
-- Stefano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
