forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Whiteboard usage - rename it to incubator
Date Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:01:59 GMT
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> David Crossley escribi??:
> > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > Ross Gardler escribi??:
> > > > By definition whiteboard stuff is not supported by the Forrest 
> > > > community, so people use it at their own risk. If something in 
> > > > whiteboard gets enough community support then it will migrate into 
> > > > trunk. That move would be where we take a vote.
> > > 
> > > The migration is not only community but as well code related. 
> > > 
> > > IMO we really should consider renaming whiteboard to incubator, because
> > > it is the place to develop not only new code but as well a community
> > > around it.  Should I call a vote?
> > > 
> > > WDYT?
> > 
> > Just discussing the proposal will be sufficient.
> > 
> > Why does it need a name change?
> 
> Because the name is not reflecting what is does. A whiteboard means in
> my dictionary something completely different then the function of the
> whiteboard in forrest. IMO the name is *too* misleading to keep it. Like
> I wrote some time ago, e.g. in the incubator the whiteboard is a link to
> the wiki (which makes sense).

The "whiteboard" has changed over time. It was intended
as a place to just experiment. However we have started
doing development there rather than using branches.

So we have changed the nature of the whiteboard.

> >  We could just add
> > to the Guidelines document to explain what we mean
> > by "whiteboard" and what are the conditions for
> > moving stuff into trunk.
> 
> Hmm, we should do this anyway, even if we change the name. My point is
> that the name is not appropriate for reflecting the usages. 

Also, the job cannot be taken lightly. There is a stack
of configuration files, build files, plugin deployment process,
and documentation to change.

So lets be absolutely sure that this is what we want to
do first. Need to find the last discussion. I am sure that
we talked about the wider topic and there were agreements on
various aspects of how to do our development. Changing the
name was probably just one component of that.

Our trouble is that we don't document this stuff in the project
Guidelines doc (even links to discussion would be a start).

-David

Mime
View raw message