On 8/19/06, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nathan Bubna wrote:
> On 8/16/06, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> First of all, I am not opposed to a move to TLP.
>>
>> Malcolm Edgar wrote:
>> > I think the TLP will be a good move for Velocity, raising its profile
>> > and getting its development moving again. So for what its worth +1
>> > from me.
>>
>> "It will get better when..." doesn't work very well is my experience.
>> If development isn't moving,
>> it isn't going to move very fast either when TLP. It will raise the
>> profile a bit, but I think a
>> release is really raising the profile and at least will give you some
>> idea how things will be when
>> there is some new press around velocity. Will it indeed attract new
>> people ?
>
> Perhaps, who knows? But with this proposal, i am more hopeful of
> getting more help from those like Malcolm who around and invested in
> Velocity but have not yet contributed much, by bringing them on board
> (either directly or with their projects) and getting them access (i.e.
> increasing ownership and convenience).
>
No one is currently holding back on him getting involved. TLP status doesn't
still needs him to earn
the right to get committer access to velocity and depending on the security
model you choose, when
the project gets out of the incubator, it will still not be sure he is a
committer of the main
codebase. So he could be starting now and join Velocity on the road the
tomorrow :)
all quite true. but surely there's something easier about moving from
one ASF project to another (much less a subproject to the parent
project) versus one Sourceforge project to an ASF one, right?
>> For a proposal like this to succeed, the proposal is I think lacking
>> some important information :
>>
>> - Are there any concrete plans for the future direction for Velocity ?
>
>
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VELOCITY?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>
>
> Key future things on my radar are whitespace handling (though we have
> no concrete plans there as yet), ditching many checked exceptions,
> security improvements for those with third-party template authors, and
> JDK5 stuff (esp. Generics and Iterable).
The whitespace handling is something that needs some work indeed ;)
I like clean output :)
Well, at least we're still better at it than the industry standard (JSP). :)
> For VelocityTools, i have more plans/ideas than i care to list. :)
> Many have half-baked code already written out.
>
>> - Since Velocity is considered mature, what is going to happen if
>> Velocity is going to live on it's
>> own, if in the end no projects decide to come to the velocity project ?
>
> i can safely say that VelocityTools will come :). And i doubt anyone
> will protest about us dragging DVSL along as well. Even if Click or
> Velosurf or any others we'd like to invite decide not to join us, i
> think these three projects nonetheless should stay together and find a
> better home than Jakarta.
>
> But, excepting VelocityTools and DVSL, i would say that Velocity would
> be little more or less alone as a TLP than it is in Jakarta these
> days. So should your scenario play out, i see no real loss.
I was explicitely talking about projects not deciding to come to velocity.
Afaik velocitytools and
dvsl are already at velocity :)
My main concern here is that when no external projects join, will the project
move into dormant state ?
?? i don't see why that would follow nor what that has to do with
being a TLP versus a Jakarta subproject.
And also when projects would like to join velocity, how are you going to handle
the project in the
incubator (luckily velocity has enough members, but those members are also
pretty busy) ?
well, i haven't been thru the incubation process yet myself, so i
can't say much specifically, but i imagine we'd go thru it the same as
any others. I believe Henning said he was willing to "champion"
Click, and i'm willing to help out.
And i still don't see this as key issue for Velocity going TLP. I've
come around to thinking we ought to move to TLP at some point here
regardless of whether other projects will join us.
>> - What problems is Jakarta giving you ? The current reasons described
>> aren't really good reasons,
>> since (afaik) you never ran into any issues (no one is holding you
>> back to release, no requests were
>> being made to add an external velocity project through the incubator)
>
> True, i wouldn't say Jakarta has given us problems. I do think,
> however, that Jakarta in general has problems (c.f. umbrella
> discussions), and that both Jakarta and the Velocity projects may be
> helped in their parting.
Agreed. As I said at the start of the previous e-mail I am absolutely not
opposed to velocity going
TLP. Just want to make sure everything (or at least as much as possible) is
covered, so the board
has all the information to base their decision on.
sounds good. :)
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
