For me the situation looks a bit slightly different: I raised a concern in https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7699b02a090d0397d661721f47a6d70b72fb83ff372fafb7d45e6f5e@%3Cdev.sling.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7699b02a090d0397d661721f47a6d70b72fb83ff372fafb7d45e6f5e@%3Cdev.sling.apache.org%3E> and Ruben answered and I unfortunately never really followed-up on that one. Still for me we haven't really reached consensus back then. I was rather a bit surprised that Robert started the VOTE without commenting on the mailing list thread first.
But I want to stress one point first: This is a great tool and I really appreciate the contribution and won't vote -1. But I would still appreciate if the tool would instead be donated to Jackrabbit as I feel this project makes more sense as home for the plugin. But since Ruben does not seem to consider this as a valid option I am also fine with having that inside Sling for the moment. Once Jackrabbit provides an HTTP endpoint we can think again about moving the project to Apache Jackrabbit. Konrad > On 27. Aug 2019, at 14:33, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> wrote: > > TBH I find this conversation a little bit strange. We have a contribution, > this contribution has been made to us, the Apache Sling project. The > suggestion with contributing to Jackrabbit has been discussed over a month > ago and it seemed no one had an issue with accepting this contribution in > Sling after that. > > Now, when it comes to a vote there is the suggestion to go with Jackrabbit > again. > > I think this is not how we should handle contribution > > Regards > Carsten > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > cziege...@apache.org
