forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?
Date Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:54:38 GMT
Gav.... wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: David Crossley []
>>Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2006 10:41 AM
>>Subject: Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?
>>Gav.... wrote:
>>>The other side effect of being a dev - and could also apply to user too
>>>maybe to a certain extent, joining the 'Forrest' Dev list was the first
>>>Step - in reality to even begin to get beneath the engine of this baby,
>>>involves joining more mailing lists of other communities in order to
>>>understand, extend, and manage all aspects of Forrest. Being on the one
>>>List simply is not good enough these days if one is to familarise
>>>with all aspects of Forrest.
>>>As a result of joining Forrest, I am also on the dev lists at 'Abdera' ,
>>>'Cocoon' , 'Lenya' , 'Gump' , 'Chaperon' , 'Daisy' , 'XSL (mulburytech)'
>>>'Heraldry' , 'Jira' , 'Subversion' , 'Maven'.
>>>Ok, so 3 or 4 of those are not needed, but do give a better overall
>>>understanding of the whole picture - and these all were ' a result
>>>And I don't mind, I'm not complaining, it is encouraged to x-commune and
>>>and give help, the point is I think that so many lists is living proof
>>>Forrest is indeed a complex beast - at least in terms of what
>>>is provided at the end of it.
>>This is not true. Forrest developers do not need to
>>join other mailing lists to do advanced Forrest.
>>Take me for example. Out of your list of 11 above,
>>i only subscribe to one: dev at cocoon, and even that
>>is not necessary to understand Forrest. Following their
>>documentation, then asking questions in context at the
>>Forrest lists is sufficient.
>>(I do do gump, but that is not because of Forrest.)
>>You will burn yourself out by joining so many.
> Ok, I 'perceived' this a while ago to be an unwritten requirement for a dev
> - in order to more fully understand the goings on under the bonnet. I don't
> Really contribute much to these lists but I do skim through and read those
> That could be relevant to Forrest, and search them occasionally when an
> Appropriate issue arises. I guess I don't like 'black boxes' .

David is correct that it is not necessary to join those lists to use 
Forrest. But if you want to do anything non-trivial then it is necessary 
to understand some of the underlying technologies that Gav refers too. 
This is the kind of complexity I am talking about - we just don't need 
it to achieve what we are trying to achieve.


View raw message