> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Based on the feedback to the list, I have to change my mind and agree that
> 2.3 should include pluggable security, not 2.2. I do think it is important
> to start getting some progress on the version numbers. That way people will
> know that Turbine is a living viable platform. Should a project be created
> in Scarab for documentation needs? Then we can add them in, and then work
> on them. I definitly am availble to do some more documentation.
>
> Eric
I am in agreement with the placement of the pluggable security (i.e. hold it
off for 2.3).
I also agree that we should create a Scarab module for the turbine
documentation. What is the preferred structure? Is it something like:
Global > Turbine > turbine-2 > Source
Global > Turbine > turbine-2 > Documentation
Global > Turbine > turbine-3 > Source
Global > Turbine > turbine-3 > Documentation
Global > Turbine > turbine-site
There is currently a thread on turbine-dev ("[Proposal - Vote required]
Issue tracking") that is discussing a general tidy up of the issue tracking
for all turbine projects. I would like to see a clean vote on this proposal
before anything changes with respect to issue tracking. Hopefully this will
come soon.
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]>
