Don't you think that most of the discussion and opinion of people in the
last posts make it irrelevant to talk about TG2 and TG3? Maintaining or
improving TG2 or TG3?
I mean and think that the issue is not whether there is a maintainer
for TG2 or not. The issue is: there are no standards/consistent API and
this is valid for both TG2 and TG3.
Don't you think that there is no sense to do any further coding before
defining some standards? (I simplify this last sentence, of course)
E.g. I would not worry about TG2 w/o a maintainer if I knew that I can
continue developing using the current TG2 and I will be able to use TG3
w/o any extra work or loss of some functionality when TG3 is released.
Bests,
Tamas
Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
Am 25.01.2011 12:48, schrieb Pavel Strashkin:
Hm...i want to ask the main question because i'm a bit confused now.
Who is the maintainer of TG? Who is working on it? Only you?
The official maintainers are Mark Ramm for TG 2.0 and Chris Perkins for
TG 2.1, who have also done the most work on these branches. Michael
Pedersen had cared about the TG 2.1 docs last year. I have taken over
maintenance of the TG 1.x branches (Chris Arndt, Florent Aide and Ken
Kuhlman did that in the past).
Seems Chris and Michael are currently swamped with other duties or
worries and Mark wants to concentrate on TG3, so TG2 currently has no
real maintainer. That's why I say discussions about improving the
stability or docs are moot unless somebody jumps in (or back in) who
really is able to commit some time as the project "owner" this year.
-- Christoph
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en.
