Danny Angus wrote:
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for your detailed reply, I hope my comments below will reassure
you that I'm not proposing anything radical, just a slightly more
visible planning process, and some small refactorings.
I also hope that we're beginning to reach a common understanding of
what James project is lacking and how to take the next step from
having tactical (I don't want to pretend you are stupid, but I know
that English is not everyone's best language, tactical means short
term) decision making towards strategic (means long term).
Thank you for remembering this!
I splitted this reply in 4 because we have too much things in the same
thread.
For virtual hosting and status file I "branched" the topic on
server-dev, while for maielt apis discussion I branched to the
mailet-api list!
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/james-mailet-api/
On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tried for more than an year to do some bigger planning and bigger
changes but I failed.
I know, and I think that the problem for some people was that the
proposals involved a lot of change, and the discussions went into a
lot of detail and moved very quickly.
I'm suggesting that one way to get these things agreed may be to
record the proposals (on the wiki?) discuss them here and revise them
then vote them into the status file where they are "officially
recorded", rather than record discuss and vote all in one mail thread.
IIRC Many of your high level proposals were rejected because whilst
people agreed with the high level, and many aspects of the detail it
was only one or two aspects of the detail which put people off.
Separating the high level proposal from the detailed design of its
implementation might allow more things to be agreed in principle, and
then we can delay arguing over details until we are ready to implement
the details, by which time we may be clearer about what is required
and what is achievable.
Do you see what I mean?
I'm not a fan of WIKIs, and the fact that there are already a lot of
outdated proposals there make me fear.
Btw I can live with WIKIs too, so if you think using wiki give us a
better workflow we can give it a try (as a sidenote I would prefer
confluence over the current wiki).
About Wiki I saw that felix, directory and geronimo projects started
using Confluence also for their website creation: they use confluence to
edit the structure and then export it statically to update the official
website. I think that if we want to "re-introduce" wiki in the james
project it would be cool to solve the "website updates" problems.
If I understood it there is also a maven2 plugin to include in the
website generation pages retrieved from confluence. Unfortunately there
is no such facility for MoinMoin.
I personally don't have a fixed roadmap: it depends on my mood and
sometimes on what features my clients are willing to pay me for ;-) but
I always try to keep trunk consistent and to commit things only when I
know I can finish it.
Thats the right approach, and (if you don't mind me saying so) one of
several reasons that your contributions have been such a sucess, which
in turn has encouraged others to become more involved.
d.
Feel free to say this as many times as you can ;-)
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
