incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: [RT] Super Simple Site Generation Tool
Date Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:04:18 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:

> In my opinion sticking with Forrest will be damaging to both parties
unless:
> - people here are willing to actually respond to Davids proposals
>  (not necessarily agree, but at least respond)

I agree that it isn't fair to always file feature requests in the form of
complaints, and not to participate in the process for resolving them ...

> - make feature requests for Forrest via our own lists and/or jira rather
>   than on lists that we don't read
> - use our user lists and docs in order to resolve problems they are
> having with the tool

... and I agree that it is generally appropriate to communicate directly
with the project.  After all, if the Maven folks wanted to know about all of
the complaints and diatribe targeted at it, they'd have to subscribe to just
about every Java-based list we have.  Not practical.

On the other hand, people don't always tend to join lots of lists,
especially when they are already on lots of lists.  They want discussion
centered around their needs, not everyone's.  So, when we had some issues
using Derby with JAMES, we didn't all join derby's lists en masse.  Instead,
we invited a few of them to join us on our list.

We can debate which approach works best, but at least we did make a point of
direct involvement.  And I think that we can agree that direct involvement
is the real key.

> then I would be +1 on sticking with Forrest (yes +1, as in I will be
> active *here* in incubator). However, I am still only one *volunteer*,
> as is David. We need other people to put in a little effort.

As I understood your recent comments, you (Forrest) are actively working to
make the workflow simpler, such than anyone should be able to download a
binary, grab our site from SVN, build and publish.  Correct?

> As I said in an earlier post, we have taken the valid parts of the
> criticism here on board and are working on it

Yes, I've been paying attention.

> Will it be timeley? I don't know we are all volunteers. It will take as
> long as it takes.

Best guess?

FWIW, I just looked over how we do the site builds with Ant for both JAMES
and the main site.  Each is a bit different, but both depend on having an
anakia task registered with Ant.  No one, anymore, needs to know how that
was done.  They just run the ant build, optionally with a site target.  How
hard would that be?  That seems to be the level of ease-of-use that people
expect, and would welcome.

In fact, when you checkout JAMES, except for jars that we cannot provide
from source control, due to licensing (JavaMail), you get everything you
need to do the build, including Ant and other dependencies -- the specific
version that we've tested and use.  So what if we were to put the correct
version of Forrest as a binary in our site build structure, along with a
build script?  That would ensure that the correct version is being used, and
support better ease of use, no?

	--- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message