Hello Francesco,
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Francesco Piccinno <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/5/3 Rodolfo S. Carvalho <[email protected]>:
> > Sorry, I needed to ask this e-mail.
> >
> > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Bartosz SKOWRON <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> Please stop this thread. Please drop this idea. As you see, some of
> >> use don't agree with this idea. Moreover, this idea impacts on our
> >> work. I'm talking about PM/UMPA. So, sorry but me and Francesco are
> >> the closest to this code and we know a bit more about an architecture
> >> of this.
> >>
> >> I remember that last year I have already talk with you about using
> >> Umit's code by UMPA. And my sentence haven't changed since that time.
> >> If there is a reason to use 2 lines of Umit code in UMPA, I would make
> >> a copy paste than making a dependence. It breaks all the features
> >> which a LIBRARY gives to anybody.
> >>
> >> Please don't compare this situation to Python or Apache. Basically you
> >> are wrong about Apache. Also Python doesn't use: python. namespace.
> >> And there is no relation between Umit and these projects. They are
> >
> > You're saying that UMPA and PM are not related to Umit. What can it be
> > possible, since UMPA and PM *are* part of Umit? This fact is enough to
> > these projects follow the same standards of the others. I don't think
> > we have to think different because UMPA or PM doesn't use class from
> > umit.core or other package. And really, I can't understand what's the
> > point about following the new naming convention.
>
> They aren't part of UMIT in the sense that UMPA is a independent
> library and don't use anyone of the classes exposed by UMIT software
> and also PM doesn't depends on UMIT code-base.
As I understood before you already get the point, and you know that when
Rodolfo was write Umit, he was talking about Umit Project.
>
> Other softwares are going to be directly integrated into umit so the
> problem will not be for them. For the projects that aren't going to be
> merged in the UMIT I've already exposed some scenarios we could
> encounter in a previous mail.
Well you didn't reply to umit-devel, but Adriano already answered.
But I get your point, you said that it is a wrong design. But if you're
using:
umitproject.umit
umitproject.pm
or
org.umit.umit
org.umit.pm
Did you still believe that is it a wrong design?
>
>
> BTW I can't understand the real goal of that restructuring. If the
> goal is to recognize that every source code file is part of UMIT
> what's the better method to use the copyright header. I mean we have a
> copyright header for every source file. Would be nice to create a
> non-profit organization called UMIT formed by us and then reassign the
> copyright to that organization. This method should be the simplest to
> use because it requires only the sed command to be done.
Adriano is making effort to create a organization *officially*. :-)
It looks good for organization, and when it will be done, copyrights can be
assign to Umit Project.
I hope you understand that my concerns is Umit Project, and not annoying you
guys.
I'm not asking for change it to:
adrianomarques.pm, luisbastiao.pm or something like that.
Best Regards,
--
Luís A. Bastião Silva
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register Now & Save for Velocity, the Web Performance & Operations
Conference from O'Reilly Media. Velocity features a full day of
expert-led, hands-on workshops and two days of sessions from industry
leaders in dedicated Performance & Operations tracks. Use code vel09scf
and Save an extra 15% before 5/3. http://p.sf.net/sfu/velocityconf
_______________________________________________
Umit-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/umit-devel
