Hi Eric,
On Fri, 2022-02-25 at 09:14 -0800, Eric Norman wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> FWIW, we have the repository maintenance already as an example
>
>
> Yes, the maintenance feature is pretty close to what I was thinking
> of.
> However, the maintenance.json in the starter project currently has no
Hi Robert,
FWIW, we have the repository maintenance already as an example
Yes, the maintenance feature is pretty close to what I was thinking of.
However, the maintenance.json in the starter project currently has no
customizations to the feature that it is wrapping. I think it would be
better
On Mon, 2022-02-21 at 11:47 +0100, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 11:58 -0800, Eric Norman wrote:
> > >
> > > why is it better to have distinct projects per feature instead of
> > > a
> > > single
> > > Starter project?
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, it would be better for a variety
On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 11:58 -0800, Eric Norman wrote:
> >
> > why is it better to have distinct projects per feature instead of a
> > single
> > Starter project?
>
>
> In my opinion, it would be better for a variety of reasons, such as;
(snip)
Yup, all good points. I think there are some
>
> why is it better to have distinct projects per feature instead of a single
> Starter project?
In my opinion, it would be better for a variety of reasons, such as;
*1)* Modularity. For example, if you need to upgrade to a new version of
oak or jetty to address some urgent problem, It would
Hi Eric,
On Sat, 2022-02-12 at 11:27 -0800, Eric Norman wrote:
> Is there any interest in splitting the feature definitions from the
> starter
> project?
>
> IMHO, it would be better if the starter was just referencing small
> features defined elsewhere and then each of those features could be
>
