Good points in this thread. Yes, the list of components is ok, but names should be removed right away. Even without putting the name elsewhere (apart from being the author of those classes) you still get personal mails about that classes/component. Let's delete the names, then... and maybe, instead of having a new classification, we could put the information in the existing component pages (e.g. uses dojo, ...)
Cheers, Bruno On 8/21/06, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think anyone will disagree to a wiki page that shows the organization of the components. So +1 for that. Also I agree with; > We are all corporately responsible for all of the code, and have freedom to get involved with any of it. So -1 for stating committer names as the maintainer of each component.
Cagatay p.s. I'm really getting used to the +1, -1 business :) On 8/21/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok valid points are risen, that it is not Apache like... > I think a vote on whether we keep the page or not > might be good... > as I said, I wanted to achieve a different purpose > for this, namely to have categorized which > components are dojoized, so that I have it easier > to test after dojo upgrades (hence also > the current maintainers of the components) > but Craig and the others have risen a valid point. > Lets either vote on this, or just do it the wiki > way and remove yourself if you feel out of place > in there. > All I really need is some sort of component categorization > so that I can keep track of things... > I did not want to open a Pandoras box here. > >
