commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Libbrecht <p...@activemath.org>
Subject Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/FederatedCommons
Date Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:16:36 GMT
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
Mime
View raw message