I have to agree with David. Lets find one way to do it and make it simple, if a build process can be. I have worked a little with Maven, and it seems tobe simple. I am not knocking Forrest. I have not had a chance to look into it. If that is more simple than Maven then I am all for it. Lets not make the build process this awful process. I think everyone would agree with that.
We're not talking about the build process as a whole. The Forrest Option refers only to website maintenance and documentation.
Since Don's ready to sign-up for Forrest, we should start by trusting his judgment and be ready to give this a try. That's what it means to be a Committer. Make the decision, do the work.
At this point, no one is raising their hand and offering to migrate us to Maven. Until someone does, Maven does not seem like a valid objection.
Though, a valid, technical objection would be that the website and the build (except for the current Cactus snafu) ain't broke, so we don't need to fix it. Steve's got everything running as valid XHTML. We're still using the original Apache look, but then so is the vast majority of other Apache projects. If we dusted off the struts-lib distribution (which appeared and disappeared during the last beta cycle), the quick-start concerns would be answered.
Certainly, it would make sense to start new development on Forrest and/or Maven. If we spun off taglibs or rolled up our sleeves on 2.0, then we'd definitely want to make a decision there. (Based primarily on who was willing to do the work.)
And, we do have Forrest running on the SourceForge site, so things like RSS feeds and WikiDocs could be tried there first to see how helpful they really are. (I must admit, I'm intrigued.)
-Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
