Here is how I understand wicketstuff hosting: Someone makes something cool and decides to share it with the community. Then this person asks in the mailing lists for commit permissions. After that this person jumps into something else and don't have time to support the project. Later on I need this cool feature and the first place to look for it is wicketstuff.org (you know because of the advertising in the mailing lists). Then I add or improve something to this project and again share it with the community. After me someone else does the same and the project lives. Otherwise some volunteer (like Jeremy) decides that this project is not maintained and moves it to attic.
About GoogleCode, github, bitbucket, ... yes, you can put your project there. But there are two problems: 1) it is less visible it is not next to the other wicketstuff projects where everyone checks first 2) when you don't have time to support it you need to give commit permissions to the people who have time or they will start clone it all over Internet. And this will just confuse further future users/maintainers On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 15:25 -0400, Boris Goldowsky wrote: > It sounds like whoever is responsible for wicketstuff needs to make a > clear choice here. > > Is Wicketstuff going to be maintained as a place where lots of useful > add-ons will live? If so, it needs someone to take a slightly more > active role as curator; make sure the releases are done in parallel with > wicket releases, make sure modules don't get dumped there without at > least some documentation; and weed out modules that are abandoned, where > no one volunteers to take on maintenance, or whose function has been > absorbed into wicket's core. > > Alternatively, make it clear that wicketstuff is NOT going to be > maintained, and people like me who would like to share modules will > share them in some other way - on Google code, a personal website, or > whatever. > > Either way is ok I think, it just would be useful for those of us who > are interested in contributing modules to know. > > Thanks > Bng > > > Jeremy Thomerson wrote: > > Really, it should match what's at trunk of Wicket, which should be > > 1.5-SNAPSHOT. There should be a branch for 1.4.x that is 1.4-SNAPSHOT. > > But, nobody is really maintaining it any more, so it's a free-for-all. > > That's always been the problem with WicketStuff. > > > > -- > > Jeremy Thomerson > > http://www.wickettraining.com > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Boris Goldowsky <bgoldow...@cast.org>wrote: > > > > > >> The wicketstuff-core is calling itself version 1.4.2 in the HEAD of SVN. > >> Shouldn't this be updated to 1.4.7 now to keep in sync with Wicket? > >> > >> Bng > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
