commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/FederatedCommons
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:48:26 GMT
On 11/11/2008, John Spackman <john.spackman@zenesis.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>  Great :)
>
>  I'm working on some addition patches for JELLY-184 and a few others; they
> don't always make a lot of sense added to a single JIRA entry though, IE
> patch for one bug affecting the patch script for another - is it OK to just
> email an update here instead?
>

Please do not send patches to the mailing list, unless they are *very* small.

It's much more difficult to keep track of them, and to reference them
in SVN logs.
Also, JIRA has a checkbox to say that you grant ASF the rights to use the patch.

If there are several JIRA issues, but one patch, then I suggest adding
the patch to one issue, and list which other issues it fixes. The
issues can also be linked together.

>  John
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Libbrecht" <paul@activemath.org>
>  To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
>  Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:19 AM
>
>  Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs.
> Open/FederatedCommons
>
>
>  We're converging John here,
>
>  I'll try to keep up with patches and commits in order for you to
>  become a committer.
>  Henri, can you please agree that we "try to make jelly enter a
>  maintained mode", within a month or so, before we show "not actively
>  maintained" on the web-page?
>
>  thanks in advance
>
>  paul
>
>
>
>
>  Le 11-nov.-08 à 06:28, John Spackman a écrit :
>
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I agree that this is _not_ something where a technical solution is
> _needed_ to go forward, I'm simply trying to keep the options open  so that
> Jelly does not disappear (IMHO marking a project as "Not  Actively
> Maintained" is the beginning of the end).
> >
> > IMHO keeping Jelly in Commons Proper is the best choice for Jelly,  while
> the 2nd choice is to keep it alive elsewhere as a federated  Commons is a
> close second, the 3rd choice as a last resort is to  create a fork.  And I
> also agree that you need to be able to see who  you're supporting, hence the
> reason for a patch submission to JIRA  yesterday (with a follow-up in
> response to your comments today).
> >
> > John
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Libbrecht" <paul@activemath.org
> > >
> > To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:16 AM
> > Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/
> FederatedCommons
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Le 10-nov.-08 à 07:11, John Spackman a écrit :
> >
> > > Yes, kind of - I've only recently come across Git and the concept  of
> DVCS but it was my intention to look at using a DVCS for this.
> > > But DVCS "only" does source code - setting up a seperate branch  only
> works if the community at large see the new branch, whereas  the  Commons
> group are considering marking Jelly as "No Longer   Maintained" and moving
> the repository out of the main branch.
> > >
> >
> > Hey no!
> > It's lacking maintainer and we shall be more than happy to make you a
> > committer having been able to measure the quality of contributions!
> >
> > The problem is not the technical approach of DVCS, the problem is only
> > endorsement: it seems rather normal that a person that hasn't been
> > seen is first a bit observed or?
> >
> > Setting up a separate fork for a while to achieve this sounds an
> > avenue to me.
> > Suggesting patches on jira or any other method or paced-down
> > contribution should be supported.
> > I'm happy to receive your source tree from time to time, in full,
> > inspect it and commit it as is for example.
> >
> >
> > > From my point of view, I would only want to perform a public  branch
> with the endorsment of the Commons team; IMHO it's  important for new and
> existing users to see a future for the  project, and for there to  be a link
> from the official Commons  website to the federated Jelly  site. The
> original downloads would  remain for backward  compatability, but the
> Commons site would  clearly refer users onto  the new site for upgrades and
> future  development.
> > >
> >
> > I don't see any reason why commons would say "things are happening
> > elsewhere" while it could happen here real soon now. The issue is
> > endorsement and not distribution.
> >
> > paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message