Hi Paul,
I agree that this is _not_ something where a technical solution is _needed_
to go forward, I'm simply trying to keep the options open so that Jelly does
not disappear (IMHO marking a project as "Not Actively Maintained" is the
beginning of the end).
IMHO keeping Jelly in Commons Proper is the best choice for Jelly, while the
2nd choice is to keep it alive elsewhere as a federated Commons is a close
second, the 3rd choice as a last resort is to create a fork. And I also
agree that you need to be able to see who you're supporting, hence the
reason for a patch submission to JIRA yesterday (with a follow-up in
response to your comments today).
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Libbrecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/FederatedCommons
John,
Le 10-nov.-08 à 07:11, John Spackman a écrit :
Yes, kind of - I've only recently come across Git and the concept of DVCS
but it was my intention to look at using a DVCS for this.
But DVCS "only" does source code - setting up a seperate branch only
works if the community at large see the new branch, whereas the Commons
group are considering marking Jelly as "No Longer Maintained" and moving
the repository out of the main branch.
Hey no!
It's lacking maintainer and we shall be more than happy to make you a
committer having been able to measure the quality of contributions!
The problem is not the technical approach of DVCS, the problem is only
endorsement: it seems rather normal that a person that hasn't been
seen is first a bit observed or?
Setting up a separate fork for a while to achieve this sounds an
avenue to me.
Suggesting patches on jira or any other method or paced-down
contribution should be supported.
I'm happy to receive your source tree from time to time, in full,
inspect it and commit it as is for example.
From my point of view, I would only want to perform a public branch with
the endorsment of the Commons team; IMHO it's important for new and
existing users to see a future for the project, and for there to be a
link from the official Commons website to the federated Jelly site. The
original downloads would remain for backward compatability, but the
Commons site would clearly refer users onto the new site for upgrades and
future development.
I don't see any reason why commons would say "things are happening
elsewhere" while it could happen here real soon now. The issue is
endorsement and not distribution.
paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
