Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Jeff Turner wrote: > Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers +1 > Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon > (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) +1 Andrew. -- Andrew SavoryEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658 Luminas Internet Applications Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135 Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/ Web:www.luminas.co.uk
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
On 26/06/2003 9:37 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: [on the suggestion to move Linotype into its own proper subproject] IMHO It's all about communities more than deployment infrastructure. So yes, I agree that it's not yet time. As always I'm speaking in present tense for future things... 8-) +1 -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 25/06/2003 0.12: on 6/24/03 7:19 AM Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: ... PS: This makes me think that Linotype should have its own project rather than being just a block... I think some other current blocks are good candidates as subprojects but I guess we are not ready for that now - I think, this fits a little bit in the context of "real blocks". I agree with Carsten here, until we have a real deployment infrastructure, it would just create more harm than good to hyperfragment our blocks into their own projects. IMHO It's all about communities more than deployment infrastructure. Is Forrest an indipendent community? Yes. Is Lenya an indipendent community? Yes. Is Linotype an indipendent community? Not yet. So yes, I agree that it's not yet time. As always I'm speaking in present tense for future things... 8-) -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
on 6/24/03 7:19 AM Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >>Jeff Turner wrote, On 24/06/2003 13.38: >> >> >>>As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting >>>that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the >> >>consensus being it >> >>>"makes sense". >>> >>>AFAICT the only practical difference would be that Cocoon committers >>>would automatically become Forrest committers. Sounds fine to me. Can >>>we vote on these issues then? >>> >>>Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers >> >>+1 >> > > +1 +1 > >>>Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon >>>(http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) >> >>+1 >> > > +1 +1 > >> >> >>PS: This makes me think that Linotype should have its own project rather >>than being just a block... >> > > I think some other current blocks are good candidates as subprojects but > I guess we are not ready for that now - I think, this fits a little bit > in the context of "real blocks". I agree with Carsten here, until we have a real deployment infrastructure, it would just create more harm than good to hyperfragment our blocks into their own projects. -- Stefano.
RE: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicola > Ken Barozzi > Jeff Turner wrote, On 24/06/2003 13.38: > > > As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev > suggesting > > that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the > consensus being > > it "makes sense". > > > > AFAICT the only practical difference would be that Cocoon > committers > > would automatically become Forrest committers. Sounds fine to me. > > Can we vote on these issues then? > > > > Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers > > +1 +1 > > > Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon > > (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) > > +1 > > > I vote +1 and +/-0. Both make sense, but 2) seems slightly > more pain > > than gain, unless there's some advantage I've overlooked. > > Well, when this issue first came out, I agreed that Forrest > could become > different from Cocoon, and eventually use something else. Reality has > shown us that we are tied double-rope with Cocoon, and this > is being a > good thing. > > Xml and Cocoon PMCs are both very nice to be in, and as for > communities > we are already cooperating anyways. > > But now that Lenya is under Cocoon, I tend to think that it changes > things. And the more we go forward, the more we will be > integrating new > parts of the Cocoon Project, assimilating things like Linotype and > Lenya, and becoming more and more part of the changes. We are > a strong > use case of Cocoon and I hope also Lenya and Linotype soon, > hence we can > be the reality check for all Cocoon projects. > > The question I ask myself is: community-wise, where do we > belong? The answer is very easy: Cocoon. > > As for the future, were will we belong community-wise? > Now I think that it also quite evident: Cocoon. > > This is the reason why I vote Cocoon. I don't think it will > be a major > change for us now practically, so it may seem more hassle > than gain, but > when things will start playing out, it will IMHO become more evident > that we belong with the Cocoon community. +1 (Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon) Reinhard
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
David Crossley wrote, On 25/06/2003 4.26: ... One disadvantage with moving Cocoon and Forrest away from xml.apache.org is that all Cocoon and Forrest committers are already automatically committers on xml-commons and could be helping that important project to find its feet. This is a good point, but a much wider issue IMHO. Cocoon committers have the same issue, so I'd favor a rule by which projects that have to do with xml have auto access to xml-commons, as it just makes sense. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
Jeff Turner wrote: > As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting > that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the consensus being it > "makes sense". > > AFAICT the only practical difference would be that Cocoon committers > would automatically become Forrest committers. Sounds fine to me. Can > we vote on these issues then? > > Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers +1 ... love the twist - parents join the children. > Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon > (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) 0 ... While it might make sense, i cannot yet see the pros and cons. Perhaps we need some discussion before voting on this. One thing that might make a difference is that the Cocoon PMC is more active (though i am not on the XML PMC so i cannot really tell) and is more relevant to the issues that Forrest encounters. One disadvantage with moving Cocoon and Forrest away from xml.apache.org is that all Cocoon and Forrest committers are already automatically committers on xml-commons and could be helping that important project to find its feet. --David
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
Jeff Turner wrote: Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers +1 Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) +1 Joerg
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
On 24/06/2003 13:38 Jeff Turner wrote: I vote +1 and +/-0. Both make sense, but 2) seems slightly more pain than gain, unless there's some advantage I've overlooked. +1 -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
John Morrison wrote: From: Jeff Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers +1 +1 Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) +0 +0 J. -marc= -- Marc Portierhttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
At 07:38 AM 6/24/2003, you wrote: Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers +1 except I don't see how we can mandate this if they are not a subproject. Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) +1 if they want to. it seems to me we need to vote to invite them (again) and they need to vote to accept. Geoff
RE: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Jeff Turner wrote, On 24/06/2003 13.38: > > > As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting > > that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the > consensus being it > > "makes sense". > > > > AFAICT the only practical difference would be that Cocoon committers > > would automatically become Forrest committers. Sounds fine to me. Can > > we vote on these issues then? > > > > Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers > > +1 > +1 > > Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon > > (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) > > +1 > +1 > > > PS: This makes me think that Linotype should have its own project rather > than being just a block... > I think some other current blocks are good candidates as subprojects but I guess we are not ready for that now - I think, this fits a little bit in the context of "real blocks". Carsten
Re: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
Jeff Turner wrote, On 24/06/2003 13.38: As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the consensus being it "makes sense". AFAICT the only practical difference would be that Cocoon committers would automatically become Forrest committers. Sounds fine to me. Can we vote on these issues then? Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers +1 Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) +1 I vote +1 and +/-0. Both make sense, but 2) seems slightly more pain than gain, unless there's some advantage I've overlooked. Well, when this issue first came out, I agreed that Forrest could become different from Cocoon, and eventually use something else. Reality has shown us that we are tied double-rope with Cocoon, and this is being a good thing. Xml and Cocoon PMCs are both very nice to be in, and as for communities we are already cooperating anyways. But now that Lenya is under Cocoon, I tend to think that it changes things. And the more we go forward, the more we will be integrating new parts of the Cocoon Project, assimilating things like Linotype and Lenya, and becoming more and more part of the changes. We are a strong use case of Cocoon and I hope also Lenya and Linotype soon, hence we can be the reality check for all Cocoon projects. The question I ask myself is: community-wise, where do we belong? The answer is very easy: Cocoon. As for the future, were will we belong community-wise? Now I think that it also quite evident: Cocoon. This is the reason why I vote Cocoon. I don't think it will be a major change for us now practically, so it may seem more hassle than gain, but when things will start playing out, it will IMHO become more evident that we belong with the Cocoon community. PS: This makes me think that Linotype should have its own project rather than being just a block... -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
RE: [VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
> From: Jeff Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers +1 > Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon > (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) +0 J.
[VOTE] Give all Cocoon committers CVS access?
As most of you probably saw, there's a thread on cocoon-dev suggesting that Forrest ought to be a Cocoon subproject, with the consensus being it "makes sense". AFAICT the only practical difference would be that Cocoon committers would automatically become Forrest committers. Sounds fine to me. Can we vote on these issues then? Vote 1: Cocoon committers automatically become Forrest committers Vote 2: Forrest should become a subproject of Cocoon (http://cocoon.apache.org/forrest) I vote +1 and +/-0. Both make sense, but 2) seems slightly more pain than gain, unless there's some advantage I've overlooked. --Jeff
