2009/2/23 Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 15:47 +0000, Ross Gardler wrote: >> 2009/2/13 Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]>: >> > On 2009-02-12, Robert Burrell Donkin >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 14:24 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> >>> On 2009-02-12, Gavin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >
... >> >> it was much easier for me over at googlecode. >> > >> > Why is that? >> >> Any thoughts? > > i liked the short, easy release cycles I don't understand what has changed. Build the release and call a vote. I appreciate on GoogleCode you didn't need to call a vote, but it's just 3 days delay or am I oversimplifying it? > >> I think a release is in order. Perhaps someone can build a release candidate. > > +1 > > volunteers? In my opinion, this is the problem, not the long release cycle. It's whether someone has the cycles to do it (we've all had the cycles to read and comment on this thread, are we asting time?) >> > The only thing that is slowing us down is that we are not trying to >> > move at all. That nobody of us has any clue of where RAT would fit in >> > is big part of that. I have no idea myself. >> >> I'm not sure either, but then it's not really ready to leave the >> incubator. We need users who are going to add features > > RAT works well enough for existing users to have unsufficient motivation > to code new features Existing users within the ASF, but what about beyond it? Just last week I was with a major open source project that wasn't aware of potential licence conflicts that I was aware of via Ohloh. They wanted to know where these conflicts were - RAT, with a little work, could do that. We need to evangalise about RAT and encourage these people to use it. The first stage of this is to create a release. OK, I'm going to stop wasting my time saying it and possibly build a release (but not today, I just returned from two weeks of solid meetings and have endless reports to write - can we make RAT do that too?) Ross
