Re: [uportal-dev] ALM support project

[Andrew Petro]

"contrib" ? +1 on moving ALM out of the core uPortal SVN deliverable +1 for finding someplace more articulate than "sandbox" for it to live +1 for really, seriously, figuring out whether anyone cares about ALM in uPortal 3... ... and whether those someones are interested in going after opportunities like Drew Wills' sleek automated ALM-->DLM upgrade and enhancing DLM (perhaps via adoption of the Mark Boyd code in Sandbox) to meet their needs.  Now that we've got a uPortal Steering Committee, I thnk this is a job for that committee, to engage with Unicon to understand the prognosis on the Academus --> Open Source uPortal using ALM with Open Source Plugins --> Open Source uPortal using DLM with Open Source Plugins upgrade path, to engage with ESUP-Portail to understand the prognosis for the "ESUP Distribution Uses DLM" idea. I've added this to the agenda for the steering committee bootstrapping conference call. Andrew +1 on removing it. +1 on bill's comments. based on some previous threads, it almost seems like we need an additional svn space outside of the sandbox that is more like a uportal framework plug-ins or add-ons space. William G. Thompson, Jr. wrote: I think the approach is a good one, although I wonder if it would keep these a bit clearer to put the ALM code into module tree distinct from sandbox so as to keep the meaning of the sandbox "experimental, not in production, code base" clear. On 9/28/07, Eric Dalquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   In the code cleanup effort outlined for the uP3 community roadmap I've been removing chunks of deprecated code where prudent and doing other minor tweaking. Some that was talked about in-depth at the conference but not as much on this list is what to do with the ALM code. The plan I had worked out with several folks was to pull the ALM/integrated modes code out into a sandboxed project in SVN. The goal of this is that we do not want new installs using ALM and we don't have plans to continue to maintain that code. That said moving the code into the sandbox allows someone else to step up at a later date and apply ALM patches and actually use the code in uPortal 3. The sandboxed project is designed to be an overlay of the uPortal 3 code, if there is interest in actually making sure that overlay is functional as we move forward I'm sure we could tweak the Maven build for the ALM project to automate that processes. These changes have already been made but it doesn't me they can't be rolled back or have a different strategy taken. -Eric ALM Move: http://www.ja-sig.org/issues/browse/UP-1835 Code Cleanup: http://www.ja-sig.org/issues/browse/UP-1832       -- You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev