> From: "Stephen Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> * Proposed strategy: issues.apache.org/scarab will exist solely for use by >> the OJB guys. If they decide to move over to scarab.werken.com then this >> scarab instance should be decommissioned. >> > -1, it might be a pain at first, but I think they would come to enjoy a > maintained, up to date version of Scarab.
Not sure what you mean here Stephen. The reason I am suggesting they migrate to the werken instance is so that they do gain the benefits of the maintained and up-to-date Scarab install (as opposed to the one they are using which may gradually succumb to entropy). Bob has indicated that we could point an apache domain name at the werken scarab install - this would be excellent as it would reduce some potential confusion and will allow for an easy transition back to an apache hosted install if this becomes necessary at any stage in the future. > >> issues.apache.org/bugzilla - turbine: 33 open issues * Proposed strategy: If >> possible, remove ability to create new turbine issues. If someone has the >> knowledge necessary to transfer the existing issues over to >> scarab.werken.com, this would probably be welcome, alternatively the existing >> issues will be transferred manually over to the appropriate modules on >> scarab.werken.com. Discretion will be used to determine whether or not an >> issue will be transferred, more specifically, issues that relate to Maven and >> some of the issues that are no longer believed to exist will not be >> transferred. >> > +0, I'm all for moving the bugzilla stuff to the werken Scarab install, but > it's more a call of the turbine-2/fulcrum committers. Agreed - thus the cross-post. Now all we need is for the committers to these projects to spend two minutes reading a largely administrative proposal and casting their votes. > >> scarab.werken.com * Global > Turbine > JCS >> > -0, I don't think JCS needs to be cast under Turbine. That's how it was snuck > into Apache, but other than that, it's not really Turbine related. That's fine. Any other "turbine projects" (loose definition) that are likely to be spun off in the near future should also be put directly beneath Global. A cursory look at Scarab seemed to indicate that it is fairly simple to move and rename modules - is this correct? > >> * [Global > Turbine > Stratum]? >> > -0 > >> * [Global > Turbine > Flux]? >> > -0 unless people are actually using and actively developing Flux? > >> * Reserved: [Global > Turbine > Maven] >> > -0, I think the Maven people would like Global > Maven instead; some of them > are pretty focused on moving into their own spotlight instead of hiding under > Turbine (which is understandable) No problem with this. > >> * Reserved: [Global > Turbine > OJB] >> > -0, same thing, Global -> OJB I think is better. Fine. > >> * Update the issue tracking references (in project.xml) for the project sites >> to direct to http://scarab.werken.com/issues >> > +1 Better still, accept Bob's offer to point an apache domain at scarab.werken.com. How about scarab.apache.org? > >> Other requirements: * Proposed strategy: The page at >> http://issues.apache.org/ should be updated to de-emphasise the apache scarab >> install (was it really going to replace bugzilla for all projects?) and to >> include reference to the scarab.werken.com instance for turbine project >> issues. >> > +1 If we can get the OJB issues over to scarab.werken then it will reduce the possibility for confusion even further. > > Thanks for stepping up to do this, Scott. I agree that it needs to be more > organized. Thanks. I must say however that lately I have been finding the lack of input from turbine committers to be quite disheartening. > > - Stephen Cheers, Scott -- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
