forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Noels <stev...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: Separate CVS module for docs?
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:11:35 GMT
Diana Shannon wrote:

 > I'm ***not*** trying to start a separate thought train. Forrest
 > transition for Cocoon is an ongoing issue, not a new thread.

my entire mail was written with the assumption this new module would not 
only be containing Cocoon docs, but also other projects docs - an idea 
which I don't particularly like due to the abysmal state of xml-site 
which is such a 'shared module'

ownership of docs should reside in the hands of per-project appointed 
code/docs committers, not centralized in some xml.apache.org-docs module

if my assumption is wrong (apparently) - sorry about it - I'm bad with 
assumptions these days... :-(

 > I'm proposing this as a more efficient path of Forrest transition
 > speaking on behalf of someone who is working hard to make that happen
 > as well as support Forrest in the process.

I know, Diana. We all know. If you prefer to have a separate module for 
cocoon-docs, I can agree with you. I'm not so sure (from a community 
perspective) whether creating subcommunities is efficient, however, but 
that's my personal opinion.

We are actively thinking about some form of forrest.jar/.war/.cent that 
projects depending on Forrest need to include inside their CVS module 
for local builds - it's just that I haven't quite wrapped my brain 
around it - anyone an idea?

Cocoon always will be a special case, I reckon, since most of what 
powers Forrest is born over there :-D

Friends again?

</Steven>
-- 
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org                      stevenn@apache.org


Mime
View raw message