From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 May 2002 07:45, David Crossley wrote:
> > >. . .
> > > So, let us develop a procedure whereby the opensource
> > > model is still employed, yet there is initial quality control.
> > >. . .
> >
> > Follow
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 07:45, David Crossley wrote:
> >. . .
> > So, let us develop a procedure whereby the opensource
> > model is still employed, yet there is initial quality control.
> >. . .
>
> Following the opensource model, I think docs should be released
>De: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
>Please make a SourceFactory
>(org.apache.excalibur.source.SourceFactory) out
>of it. With the release 2.1 the source handler is deprecated.
I tryed to have a look at it, but :
1- I did not manage to build avalon (excalibur) doc from current
From: "Carsten Ziegeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> > No not in the scratchpad. There they will be forgotten,
> > believe me.
> >
> -1 for scratchpad
>
> Without really wanting to repeat myself: I still advice
> to take one single and simple step at a time. The first
> appr
Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
>
> Who is someone else? Patches in bugzilla are very lonely in
> the moment. There are simply not applied. Why? Because there
> about 600 classes in Cocoon, about 10 active committers and
> nobody feels responsible. It's easy to say, oh I didn't
> wrote this code, therefo
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>
>>What about a 2-sided configuration :
>>- in cocoon.xconf, declare a new source-handler specific to a particular
>>CVS repository
>>
>>
>>:pserver:@cvs.apache.org:/home/cvspublic
>>
>>cocoon_2_0_3_branch
>>
>>
>>
>>
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
> What about a 2-sided configuration :
> - in cocoon.xconf, declare a new source-handler specific to a particular
> CVS repository
>
>
> :pserver:@cvs.apache.org:/home/cvspublic
>
> cocoon_2_0_3_branch
>
>
>
Please make a SourceFactory (org.a
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 16:27, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> Agree ... but they must get re-viewed and applied somehow.
> If not, Cocoon will stand still and the community breaks.
aggreed...
> >Maybe we try too hard to keep HEAD stable?
>
> That's the point. But nobody stated this, or? IMO the
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Diana Shannon wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 05:20 AM, Stephan Michels wrote:
> >
> >> The best way to do this, is to implement the CVS support in cocoon.
> >
> >
> > But you still need some form of webapp front-end to address all C
Diana Shannon wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 05:20 AM, Stephan Michels wrote:
>
>> The best way to do this, is to implement the CVS support in cocoon.
>
>
> But you still need some form of webapp front-end to address all CMS
> concerns. CVS versioning is insufficient, IMO.
>
>>
>> I
Hi,
> >
> >So what to do, what to do... ?
As I understand the problem is to understand the total
effects of a patch.
Thus you path the code, try some sample, and if
it works you say it is fixed.
The side effects of a patch, or an enhancement you may
or may not understand depending on the total
Hi,
>>On Wednesday 15 May 2002 12:00, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> >I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the
>> >committer to undertake initial quality control when they
>> >accept the patch from Bugzilla and prepare for their
>> >commit. If they do not know anything abou
Hi,
>> From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 12:00, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > >I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the
>> > >committer to undertake initial quality control when they
>> > >accept the patch from Bugzilla and
D]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: [docs] opensource and quality control
> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 07:45, David Crossley wrote:
> >. . .
> > So, let us develop a procedure whereby the opensource
> > model is still employed, yet there is initial quality con
> From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 12:00, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > >I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the
> > >committer to undertake initial quality control when they
> > >accept the patch from Bugzilla and prepare for
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 12:00, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the
> >committer to undertake initial quality control when they
> >accept the patch from Bugzilla and prepare for their
> >commit. If they do not know anything about the topic,
Hi,
>> From: Gerhard Froehlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the
>> >committer to undertake initial quality control when they
>> >accept the patch from Bugzilla and prepare for their
>> >commit. If they do not know anything about the topic, t
From: "Morrison, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: Gerhard Froehlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the
> > >committer to undertake initial quality control when they
> > >accept the patch from Bugzilla and prepare for their
> > >commit. If th
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 05:20 AM, Stephan Michels wrote:
> The best way to do this, is to implement the CVS support in cocoon.
But you still need some form of webapp front-end to address all CMS
concerns. CVS versioning is insufficient, IMO.
>
> I were glad to see a CVSSource and a CVS
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 11:20, Stephan Michels wrote:
>. . .
> The best way to do this, is to implement the CVS support in cocoon.
>. . .
Yes sure, but there's no such thing today AFAIK - I was trying to suggest a
concrete solution that can be implemented right away.
-Bertrand
---
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 12:13, Diana Shannon wrote:
>. . .
> > b) each doc has a unique ID
>
> Do we really need unique ID attribute if filename is unique, or is this
> short-sighted?
>. .
Unique filenames would work for sure, doesn't have to be numerical, just
pratical to include in the subj
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 07:45, David Crossley wrote:
>> . . .
>> So, let us develop a procedure whereby the opensource
>> model is still employed, yet there is initial quality control.
>> . . .
>
> Following the opensource model, I think docs should be released as
> From: Gerhard Froehlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the
> >committer to undertake initial quality control when they
> >accept the patch from Bugzilla and prepare for their
> >commit. If they do not know anything about the topic, then
> >they
Hi,
>I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the
>committer to undertake initial quality control when they
>accept the patch from Bugzilla and prepare for their
>commit. If they do not know anything about the topic, then
>they should not be taking on the patch - let someone else
>do
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 07:45, David Crossley wrote:
> >. . .
> > So, let us develop a procedure whereby the opensource
> > model is still employed, yet there is initial quality control.
> >. . .
>
> Following the opensource model, I think docs
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 07:45, David Crossley wrote:
>. . .
> So, let us develop a procedure whereby the opensource
> model is still employed, yet there is initial quality control.
>. . .
Following the opensource model, I think docs should be released as early as
possible, with only minimal ini
The issue of how to introduce at least some minimal
quality control for documentation is creating some friction
on this list. Let us nip it in the bud before it blossoms.
Opensource is all about getting something done and
getting it out so that everyone can build upon it. By the
very nature of op
27 matches
Mail list logo
