On 11/11/2008, John Spackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Great :) > > I'm working on some addition patches for JELLY-184 and a few others; they > don't always make a lot of sense added to a single JIRA entry though, IE > patch for one bug affecting the patch script for another - is it OK to just > email an update here instead? >
Please do not send patches to the mailing list, unless they are *very* small. It's much more difficult to keep track of them, and to reference them in SVN logs. Also, JIRA has a checkbox to say that you grant ASF the rights to use the patch. If there are several JIRA issues, but one patch, then I suggest adding the patch to one issue, and list which other issues it fixes. The issues can also be linked together. > John > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Libbrecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:19 AM > > Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. > Open/FederatedCommons > > > We're converging John here, > > I'll try to keep up with patches and commits in order for you to > become a committer. > Henri, can you please agree that we "try to make jelly enter a > maintained mode", within a month or so, before we show "not actively > maintained" on the web-page? > > thanks in advance > > paul > > > > > Le 11-nov.-08 à 06:28, John Spackman a écrit : > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
