cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <>
Subject Re: [proposal]
Date Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:17:01 GMT
Le 18/07/11 20:56, Reinhard Pötz a écrit :
> On 07/13/2011 09:30 AM, Steven Dolg wrote:
>> We should take a look at introducing "topic" specific modules.
>> I fear that the optional module turns into a giant clump of all things
>> unrelated.
> Generally +1 to topic specific modules. As Steven already knows from 
> Indoqa projects, I'm a fan of many small modules ;-)
> In regard to the still small C3 community (not in terms of people but 
> rather in terms of SVN changes and mailing list activity) we should 
> think about having a "Cocoon Stuff" project (analogous to Wicket 
> Stuff) where everybody that is interested gets commit rights. This 
> also clearly indicates what we as Apache Cocoon community consider 
> being officially maintained.
> (BTW, the Wicket community is very restrictive in moving code from 
> into the wicket-core codebase because of the mentioned 
> maintenance reasons).
> The wicket folks had a vote between hosting their stuff project either 
> at Github or at Apache-Extras (powered by Google Code). Github won and 
> the result can be found at and 
> But there is also a downside:
>  - Cocoon release will become (slightly) more work in the future
>    because two code bases have to be released
>  - releases are not ASF releases and we can't
>    rely on the ASF litigation protection mechanisms anymore
>    (which is also true for most opensource software out there)
>    (NB: That is the reason why we need 3 +1 votes of PMC members before
>         we can do a release and tag it with the Apache name)
>  - that the transition has to be done:
>    * contact the Apache Board about reserving the domain
>    * decide what goes to and what remains at
>    * rename all packages accordingly
>    * create a cocoonstuff-samples module
>    * decide whether we (the Cocoon PMC) want to enforce the AL 2.0 for
>      all cocoonstuff modules
>    * decide about the release voting precedure
>    * setup a website (if we use Github we could also use
>      it for hosting static websites)
>    * find out how to get the Maven artifacts deployed to the
>      central Maven repository
>    * find a solution for continuous integration (Jenkins) and providing
>      snapshot releases (Nexus?)
> But IMO there is also an additional benefit: Creating cocoonstuff 
> would lower the barrier for contributions and could attract more 
> people to get involved with C3.


I definitely agree that modules specific to a 3rd party library or a JSR 
that's not included in the JDK are to be packaged as separate artifacts. 
As Steven rightfully points out, it's a real pain to download and 
package a huge load of libraries you don't need. And this what has been 
done in Cocoon since 2.0 with the large collection of blocks.

Now hosting these modules away from is a different thing that 
has strong implications on community dynamics. The C3 community is 
slowly growing after having been almost dormant for months (years?), 
which is a very good thing, and I fear that a would just 
harm this nascent effort by splitting the still brittle community. Also, 
a separate environment comes with additional time spent in 
administrative stuff (look at your long task list!) that could probably 
be used more wisely to build a stable C3.

So if the purpose is to lower the barrier for contribution, then why not 
just having a "contrib" directory in SVN, clearly showing that these 
aren't core modules, but still under the oversight of the PMC and the 
ASF at large?

Of course, managing Git pull requests would be more convenient than 
applying patches in Jira, but still, at this point, this is probably 
easier than having a completely separate infrastructure.

My 0.02 cents.


Sylvain Wallez -

View raw message