Well, since no one else seems to have an opinion, we can either a) assume they have no objections and procede or b) call for a vote to get attention and decide by lazy consensus (at least one +1 and no -1)
personally, i'm ok with either next step. :) On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Nathan Bubna <nbu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Antonio Petrelli > <antonio.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all >> this is just to let you know that I've finished reorganizing all >> Velocity projects. I left only the DocBook framework since it is not a >> project, but a directory layout useful to build your documents based >> on DocBook. >> For produced builds see: >> http://people.apache.org/builds/velocity/ >> >> A snapshot of all projects are in Maven snapshot repository. >> >> At this point I hope to receive some feedback from you and, if you >> like it, maybe we can start a vote thread to move projects from the >> sandbox to the trunk. > > Ok, summer is nuts. I'm finally digging into a lot of old velocity > todo stuff, including this. I've been running the maven-reorg builds > and poking around at them. For the most part, i like it. It will > certainly take some getting used to though, and i'm still fairly wary > of complicated Maven stuff after all my frustration with the > velocity-site mess. But at this point, you'll have my support in a > vote for moving this into the Engine 2.0, Tools 2.1, etc, with one > condition: documentation. With the proliferation of artifacts and > their various reasons and dependencies, we need some very > user-friendly "Which Jar Is For Me?" type of documentation for users. > We also need to be sure that you aren't the only one who understands > how this customized, complicated Maven build works. And finally, i > don't know if maven can do this, but one of my current favorite parts > of the Velocity and VelocityTools build files is that they spit out > customized directions for building and publishing releases right along > with the target output, including what documentation to be sure and > update. That really helps to keep me on track when i'm doing > releases. > > Also, i'm curious whether any of these builds include OSGi manifest > creation? That's a recent addition to some of our builds (just engine > and tools at this point, i think), that i don't want to lose. > > All in all, this is great work, and i'm excited to see us move in a > more standard direction for our next versions. I am very sorry that > it took me so long to respond, and i hope you aren't too discouraged > that no one else has responded yet. It's a big thing to consider and > hard to comment intelligently without putting in a lot of time. Good > documentation to read over that explains how/what is going on with all > the poms and such would probably help get more response, but i know > you've put in a lot of work already. > > So, seriously, what do the rest of you guys think? We've long talked > about perhaps doing this in 2.0. Should we fire up an official vote > thread or just voice support here? Henning, i know you are planning > to work on fixing velocity-site, does any of this help? hinder? > >> Thanks >> Antonio >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org
