On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am willing (as always) to contribute as much as my time permits to the JSF > 2.0 implementation. I tried to find in the list what is going to be the big > picture, the roadmap to have a JSF 2.0 implementation. Do we have something
no. I was beaten by Simon. My plan was to add those interfaces/APIs, that are already know. > like that? How are we going to integrate Facelets, for instance? (good that > is now under ASL!). What part are you developing at the moment? The RI folks checked it into their repos, AFAIK. I bet to work under CDDL ;-) These parts are not (yet) public, I think. Not sure... -Matthias > > Thanks! > > Bruno > > 2008/8/28 Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Simon Lessard >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Matthias Wessendorf >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Simon Lessard >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Simon, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Simon Kitching >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I see from the commit list that a new JSF2.0 branch has been >> >> >> created. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't remember seeing *any* kind of discussion or even >> >> >> announcement >> >> >> about this. While I am happy to see JSF2.0 work going on, this kind >> >> >> of >> >> >> approach does not seem to be at all in the "community" spirit. IMO, >> >> >> major >> >> >> events like this should be discussed beforehand. >> >> > >> >> > As mentioned by other people, there was a vote about this a while >> >> > back . >> >> > Why >> >> > did I create it just now? Simply because my company agreed to provide >> >> > some >> >> > resource to help with the implementation and we were ready to get >> >> > started. >> >> >> >> One might ask here for a CCLA ;-) >> >> We did that for Oracle way back, and update once in a while all the >> >> contributors, >> >> that have signed the iCLA. >> > >> > Yeah, but Fujistu signed a CCLA already when I became commiter, so >> > that's a >> > non issue as well. >> >> good. >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> One issue, for example, is that the core-1.2 stuff is currently >> >> >> half-way-converted from the trinidad plugins to the >> >> >> myfaces-builder-plugin. >> >> >> So now it is branched, any changes need to be applied in two places. >> >> > >> >> > To be honest, I find this irrelevant, it's a branch, not a trunk and >> >> > I'll >> >> > most likely do some branch merging when core 1.2.x get release and >> >> > the >> >> > plugin might have to change a little to support jsfVersion 2.0. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> In addition, a large amount of code has just been committed by >> >> >> someone >> >> >> (slessard) who is not a particularly regular contributor to myfaces. >> >> > >> >> > I see even less relevance in that statement. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Where did this code come from? Do we need a code grant for it? Note >> >> >> that >> >> >> when code is developed iteratively on the dev list then there is no >> >> >> need for >> >> >> a grant. But a sudden code dump is different, even when contributed >> >> >> by >> >> >> someone who has signed a CLA. >> >> > >> >> > The code was coded just yesterday by me and is not much at all, >> >> > creating >> >> > missing classes for the JavaDoc change log is in no matter a large >> >> > amount in >> >> > term of complexity. Also since I was the only author of it (my >> >> > teammates >> >> > will wait until I have added the signatures). There's absolutely no >> >> > need >> >> > of >> >> > code grant either. >> >> >> >> I agree on the code grant, b/c of it is really pretty trivial to >> >> create those API classes/interfaces >> >> (based on the javadoc log, as I said before). >> >> @signatures: you mean the iCLA / CCLA, aren't you ? >> > >> > nah, I meant method signatures, it will be easier for my teammates to >> > know >> > what they have to do once there's a nice // TODO: Convert to JSF 2.0 >> > added >> > in every new method's body. >> > >> > As far as I understand the legal issues (might have to fallback to >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] though), they won't need a CLA until they become >> > commiters. >> > I don't know if I should have the company add their names to the CCLA >> >> no. wrong >> cla == contributor license agreement. >> I usually ask for that after one or two patches. Never been an issue at >> all. >> We (from ORA) add those contributors to our CCLA, and fax the update to >> Sam Ruby (our ASF secretary). >> >> > however. Technically, we aren't bound contractualy by any intellectual >> > property transfer with my employer and we're developping outside normal >> > business hours so we aren't directly paid either for it so I don't know >> > if >> > adding their name to the CCLA is even needed or not. >> >> that means, what you develop on your sparetime is yours... NO CCLA update >> required. Cool >> >> -Matthias >> >> > >> > >> > ~ Simon >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> And with 3 branches to now maintain, we need to discuss whether and >> >> >> when >> >> >> we phase out maintenance of the jsf-1.1 branch. Currently when users >> >> >> provide >> >> >> patches in jira, they almost always provide a patch against only one >> >> >> version >> >> >> and the committer ports it, which does increase the load on existing >> >> >> committers. When do we stop asking committers to do this when >> >> >> patching >> >> >> bugs? >> >> > >> >> > I can take care of the branch merging, this is how we handled the >> >> > trinidad >> >> > 1.2 branch at first, Adam would do the merging every now and then, so >> >> > I'm >> >> > not asking the committers to do some extra work. >> >> >> >> yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work >> >> there, on the branch. >> >> If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, >> >> >> and >> >> >> appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed >> >> >> implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that >> >> >> "community >> >> >> is >> >> >> more important than code", and the "community" aspect here seems to >> >> >> have >> >> >> been rather neglected... >> >> > >> >> > I don't agree at all here. Although it wasn't announced on the dev >> >> > list, >> >> > the >> >> > JIRA ticket created to attach patches was speciafically for the >> >> > community. >> >> >> >> and the branch creation was also discussed. >> >> >> >> > Code provided by Fujitsu employees will never go through me with >> >> > direct >> >> > commit, it will all be added as patches, even extra tests and >> >> > documentation >> >> > as we want them and everyone else willing to help get the credit for >> >> > it. >> >> >> >> we do the same. Folks provide patches and jira tickets to describe the >> >> problem. >> >> >> >> > Furthermore, I personally didn't announce it because the branch will >> >> > be >> >> > very >> >> > instable for a week or two until we finish adding the missing >> >> > signatures >> >> > (impl might not even always compile). >> >> >> >> dev@ is a developers community; so that would be fine :-) >> >> >> >> -Matthias >> >> >> >> > If community wasn't important in the process we would just have used >> >> > a >> >> > private repository at Fujitsu, worked on it for some time with my >> >> > team, >> >> > then >> >> > commit some very large amount of code (real large) that would have >> >> > needed a >> >> > code grant, prevented the people to see at what rythm things were >> >> > progressing and contributing. The only point I *could* give you here >> >> > is >> >> > that >> >> > maybe I should have annouced the creation directly on the dev list >> >> > and >> >> > point >> >> > on the JIRA ticket and SVN url rather than relying only on JIRA >> >> > ticket >> >> > report that get forwarded on the dev list. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> > ~ Simon >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Simon >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Matthias Wessendorf >> >> >> >> Need JSF and Web 2.0? >> >> http://code.google.com/p/facesgoodies >> >> >> >> further stuff: >> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> >> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> >> Need JSF and Web 2.0? >> http://code.google.com/p/facesgoodies >> >> further stuff: >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > -- Matthias Wessendorf Need JSF and Web 2.0? http://code.google.com/p/facesgoodies further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
