Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
From: "John Morrison" <john.r.morrison@ntlworld.com>
To: <cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Cocoon sandbox @ Sourceforge? (Re: [Proposal] Cocoon Sandbox)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:39:02 -0000
Message-ID: <NCEBJJFMCAOKNNABBFIMOEKNDBAA.john.r.morrison@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <83isv7ypww.fsf@bog.fiz-chemie.de>
Importance: Normal

> From: Martin Holz
> "Morrison, John" <John.Morrison@uk.experian.com> writes:
> 
> > Now that Cocoon is a top most project with it's own domain and
> > the ability to setup it's own (not in the Apache group of) cvs
> > repositories, which the Cocoon PMC is free to administer, what
> > improvement is there from a Sourceforge approach?
> 
> Sourceforge is specialized in providing infrastructure for 
> lots of small projects. Should ASF duplicate this?
> There is already a playground. 

I know what Sourceforge is.  But (and this is the *major* point)
it's not Apache.

The "Apache" brand shouldn't, IMHO, _require_ projects to use
Sourceforge.  I don't know much about the infrastructure behind
Sourceforge (I only know a little about what's behind Apache), but
I don't know what would happen to all source thats there if the
money went away.  I don't believe Apache would.

Please don't get me wrong, I like the thought of Sourceforge and
it has lots of uses.  But this is Apache.

I hope my point of view is clear without being forceful.

J.