Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin Loritsch wrote:
<snip/>
While I know there should be no issue with the latter course, the
first one does require a "buyout" so to speak with Avalon.
Personal preference is to do it right - re-cut Fortress based on the
enabling Avalon technologies and in the process provide a viable
migration path. Niclas has already said he's ready to cut the
meta-integration, I'm ready to deal with the repo-synchronization. All
we really need is an ECM/Fortress expert (hint, hint).
Well, I think Alex Karasulu will be interested in helping out, and I
just talked to filipdef at D-Haven also concerned about the future of
Fortress.
As for me, I keep singing the same time song (I'm sure your tired of it
by now), but I am always available for questions.
BTW, what do you mean "deal with the repo-synchronization"? Are you
talking about putting "Repository" into Fortress? If so, please don't.
There are a lot of folks who have been wanting to make it optional on
Merlin to no avail. If it is still that controversial, then Fortress
would be available for those who don't want to buy in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
