Do we want to list out who's responsible for components on the wiki?
It seems like ththis would encourage having people send email directly
an individual committer rather than the MyFaces community.
Once things are checked into the repository, we should all be
collectively responsible for the cod
Op ma, 21-08-2006 te 11:14 -0400, schreef Mike Kienenberger:
> Do we want to list out who's responsible for components on the wiki?
> It seems like ththis would encourage having people send email directly
> an individual committer rather than the MyFaces community.
Hmm, good point.
>
> Once thing
Jurgen Lust schrieb:
> Op ma, 21-08-2006 te 11:14 -0400, schreef Mike Kienenberger:
>> Do we want to list out who's responsible for components on the wiki?
>> It seems like ththis would encourage having people send email directly
>> an individual committer rather than the MyFaces community.
>
> Hm
On 8/21/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jurgen Lust schrieb:> Op ma, 21-08-2006 te 11:14 -0400, schreef Mike Kienenberger:>> Do we want to list out who's responsible for components on the wiki?>> It seems like ththis would encourage having people send email directly
>> an individual comm
On 8/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do we want to list out who's responsible for components on the wiki?
It seems like ththis would encourage having people send email directly
an individual committer rather than the MyFaces community.
I agree with Mike,
I saw the page this
On 8/21/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I get lot's of direct emails, I think Mike is right, that this can (orwill) increase the number of offline emails.You'd be amazed at how many personal Tomcat questions I still get, after not having worked on that project for several years,
Oh boy,
I belive that. I bet you also get lot's of stuff on Jakarta Commons.
:) and Struts ;)
On 8/21/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/21/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I get lot's of direct emails, I think Mike is right, that this can (or
> will)
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 (h
I mean Mario and me talked about a thing like
"fix 2 bugs a month". Also not really Apache, so why just
discussed stuff during a beer, or more ...
:)
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
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 com
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, instea
Ok, since the feedback was mostly negative and one -1 voting and no +1s
I removed the maintainers but kept the kategorization,
I really need the cats for future testing purposes.
Also the feedback on the idea of categorizing the components
was positive:
http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/ComponentCate
Ok, Mike told me that I was wrong to move this discussion to pmc@ and I
should repost it at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, I dont want to rewarm this discussion, but when I reread my own
post I think there are still valid points within.
So - here we go:
On 8/22/06, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
13 matches
Mail list logo
