I think the TLP will be a good move for Velocity, raising its profile and getting its development moving again. So for what its worth +1 from me.
I do acknowledge Ahmeds point, as I would love to see the 1.5-dev released. Its almost a bit unfair for people using 1.4 because its the production version where 1.5-dev addresses many of its problems. What is the Velocity Hackathon? regards Malcolm Edgar On 8/12/06, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I won't be at ApacheCon, but i may be able to plan to contribute some time during it to participate in a hackathon remotely. On 8/11/06, Will Glass-Husain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm a fan of the TLP idea, though I recognize the validity of Ahmed's > concerns. > > Looking back at the project for a moment... We've got a mature product with > a solid user base, some specific technological action steps we need to > take but stalled development. User support is very good -- the mailing > lists are active with three committers and 5-10 users actively supporting > new users. The problem is that everyone currently involved has time for > support but not development. > > Becoming a TLP won't do anything magical for us. But it'll provide us with > an umbrella to invite other related projects to join Velocity. (via the > Incubator, of course). Malcolm Edgar's "Click" framework, which has its own > community and is a pretty innovative approach to web development, is the > leading contender. I think a closer connection with such efforts may help > us revitalize the core development. > > It'd be nice if we could pair the new TLP organization with a release of v. > 1.5. Anyone want to join a "Velocity Hackathon" at ApacheCon US in early > October and push this out? > > WILL > > > > > On 8/11/06, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 8/11/06, Ahmed Mohombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would like to propose that Velocity step out from the Jakarta > > > > umbrella and become a TLP at Apache. > > > IMHO not the Velocity's position in the Apache tree is the problem, but > > > the time invested by it's commiters. A SVN history can do everyone to > > see that. > > > > Hmm. Well, that's not really the problem that we're trying to solve > > with this proposed move. But, since you mention it, one of my main > > reasons for supporting this move is that it will allow us to make > > closer connections between Velocity-based projects and thus grow the > > immediate community. This may both 1) create renewed interest in past > > and current committers and contributers via more exposure to new, > > interesting Velocity-based projects (like Click) and/or 2) make it > > easier to bring in new committers and contributers for Velocity from > > those projects' communities. Of course, there are no guarantees, but > > when i combine the above with the fact that much of VelocityTools > > really doesn't fit with the direction Jakarta is heading--obstructing > > the desired path for both Jakarta and VelocityTools--then it seems > > very clear to me that this effort is worth some time on my part in the > > near future. > > > > > So my vote (even if it doesn't count) would be -1 for a move. > > > > :( > > > > > Better invest that very small time that you have for Velocity and bring > > out finally the 1.5 > > > release. Many were expecting it last year's autumn and now have the fear > > that > > > it won't be out not even this year's autumn. > > > > In contrast to my reasons above, it has been exceedingly hard to > > motivate myself (much less others, either contributers or committers) > > to hunt down and fix the remaining known bugs in 1.5-dev, since most > > are obscure, difficult to fix and already were present in the previous > > official releases. Many were even reported prior to those previous > > releases. > > > > Further, i'll admit that i've become increasingly comfortable using > > the unreleased 1.5-dev, having no personal policy against it and not > > currently needing it for my employer. I suspect the same is true of > > the other committers and many key contributers. This also affects how > > i prioritize the time i have to spend on Velocity stuff. > > > > All that said, I won't ask that you agree with my choice to spend time > > on this proposal prior to working on the bugs we wish to swat before > > releasing 1.5 (or even just releasing it as is), but considering that > > i've already decided this is where i wish to put my little time in the > > next month or so, i must ask, is it really the move to TLP that you > > oppose? Or is it just how i (and others supporting this) have chosen > > to prioritize our time? > > > > I will hear feedback on the latter, but i'd prefer to know what people > > think of the former, regardless of the latter. :) > > > > Thanks! > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Ahmed. > > > -- Click Framework: http://click.sourceforge.net > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Forio Business Simulations > > Will Glass-Husain > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.forio.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
