forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@apache.org>
Subject Re: move Transformers to Cocoon (Was: [GUMP@brutus]: Project forrest (in module forrest) failed)
Date Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:53:34 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>> David Crossley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should we move these transformers over to the core of
>>>> Cocoon?
>>>
>>> No way.
>>>
>>> Putting them in Cocoon == losing control over them. We see it with 
>>> the linkmap stuff, and I don't want it happening again.
>>
>> Well we need to keep them up-to-date then.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> But what do you mean by losing control? Do you mean
>> Cocoon people change it without us knowing?

Sorry, i could have chosen better words there.

> No, of course not, it's the other way around. Having the code in the 
> Cocoon SVN implies that:
> 
> 1 - our committers will not generally be able to commit there
> 2 - we are not able to VOTE changes to it, as it's Cocoon's PMC role
> 3 - most important: it's a barrier to entry, as the Cocoon build is
>    much slower and more complicated than our's
> 
>> What happened with "the linkmap stuff"? Sorry i must
>> have missed a kerfuffle.
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/trunk/src/blocks/linkrewriter/
> 
> We use it, it's a main part of Forrest, but it's in Cocoon.
> I wanted to work on it, but having it there, even if I have access and 
> am part of the Cocoon PMC, made it impossible for me given my time 
> constraints.

Okay, your reasons are very convincing.

The main thing that started this thread, was that
Gump suddenly told us about a breakage. I notice
that a number of recent breakages are about us
using deprecated stuff in Cocoon which finally
goes away and then we break. So having it under
our control does not necessarily mean it will be
up-to-date.

--David

Mime
View raw message