openmeetings-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ankush Mishra <>
Subject Re: GSoC 2016: Status and some concerns regarding caldav4j
Date Mon, 09 May 2016 07:54:42 GMT
Alright that makes sense. I think ioggstream, the Project Maintainer would
be fine with merging, as long as we get a version after migration which
works with very few bugs.

I like the steps you've mentioned and thus should hopefully get working on
that. This plan is sound and I hope to emulate it.

Much Thanks
Ankush Mishra
On 9 May 2016 13:15, "" <> wrote:

> Well, the goal should be more that we bring the caldav4j changes you do in
> a state where it is worth considering by the main developers to merge to
> the master branch.
> We cannot really integrate a library from your branch. We can integrate it
> temporarily, for the duration of your GSoC project.
> But once we want to really merge it into the main OpenMeetings source code
> and release it the problem starts:
>  - We need a Maven artefact of your code, not just a compiled library
>  - We need a release version of your code (No Snapshot version dependencies
> are allowed for a release)
> I am aware that there are tricks to get around those rules (like custom
> Maven repositories et cetera). However this can only be an exception, not
> the standard rule that we just do with everything.
> Also this kind of fragmented development makes it very hard for 3rd parties
> to participate in the project since we make very complicated to understand
> the dependencies.
> So the end goal has to be that your code becomes part of the master branch
> of caldav4j and that there is a release of that library that contains your
> patches (or a merged version of it). However let's tackle it one by one. So
> in order of priority:
> 1) Fix what you have to fix and make it work for OpenMeetings
> 2) Finish the rest of your GSoC requirements successful
> 3) If you have the time bring the caldav4j stuff in a state where we can
> propose a patch to their main branch
> Thanks,
> Sebastian
> 2016-05-09 12:11 GMT+12:00 Ankush Mishra <>:
> > I fixed the building the code for the project, which was caused due to a
> > couple of bugs in the code, albeit small ones.
> >
> > No problems with just the partial migration. In fact the library works
> out
> > of box, without any migration. Having tested it myself. I'll probably do
> a
> > slow migration as I see fit. Plus, since development is sort of halted,
> it
> > won't be a issue, maintaining compatibility with the master and my fork.
> >
> > Much thanks
> > Ankush Mishra
> >
> --
> Sebastian Wagner

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message