forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diana Shannon <>
Subject Re: Separate CVS module for docs?
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:32:10 GMT

On Friday, July 12, 2002, at 12:11  PM, Steven Noels wrote:

> 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'
No **only** cocoon docs. They are hard enough.

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

> if my assumption is wrong (apparently) - sorry about it - I'm bad with 
> assumptions these days... :-(
Sorry, I probably just expressed it weakly.

> > 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 sure what is best, that's why I was asking for input. It's up to 
the community -- not a single person -- to decide what's best.

> I'm not so sure (from a community perspective) whether creating 
> subcommunities is efficient, however, but that's my personal opinion.
How does a separate module weaken a community? I'm trying to help 
committers, speed up releases, etc. etc. I'm not trying to fork Forrest, 
if that's what you're are saying. It's just felt like there's a window 
of opportunity (for Cocoon) with 2.0.3 about to be released. The timing 
felt right.

> 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?
I'm worried about bloating Cocoon's CVS any more than is necessary.

> Friends again?


View raw message