Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ws-scout-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 22506 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2010 00:57:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2010 00:57:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 31800 invoked by uid 500); 25 Sep 2010 00:57:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ws-scout-dev-archive@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 31757 invoked by uid 500); 25 Sep 2010 00:57:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact scout-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: scout-dev@ws.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list scout-dev@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 31736 invoked by uid 99); 25 Sep 2010 00:57:13 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 00:57:13 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [207.172.157.102] (HELO smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net) (207.172.157.102) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 00:57:04 +0000 Received: from mr17.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.37]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2010 20:56:43 -0400 Received: from mx04.lnh.mail.rcn.net (mx04.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.54]) by mr17.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id ALW50031; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:56:22 -0400 Received: from 24-148-56-77.snb-ubr1.chi-snb.il.cable.rcn.com (HELO faath) ([24.148.56.77]) by smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2010 20:56:22 -0400 From: "Jeff Faath" To: , Cc: References: <4C9CA81D.5000801@gmail.com> <4C9D01F6.5020606@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4C9D01F6.5020606@redhat.com> Subject: RE: jUDDI TLP project Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:56:18 -0500 Message-ID: <001201cb5c4c$76fd4210$64f7c630$@org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: ActcImE5mpKXm/eLTGeOlE7PXaQIRgAKaFdw Content-Language: en-us I'm always for consolidation as it follows the KISS theory. But I would defer to Tom's opinion since he's done the most work on Scout recently. I think the lists should definitely be consolidated until the traffic warrants splitting them up. -Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Tom Cunningham [mailto:tcunning@redhat.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:55 PM To: scout-dev@ws.apache.org Cc: juddi-dev@ws.apache.org; juddi-user@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: jUDDI TLP project David Jencks wrote: > I think that would be too much considering the very low traffic we get. We might even want to have only one juddi mailing list until we get enough traffic to warrant separate dev and users lists. There's been some discussion recently on incubator and the consensus seems to be that having only one list is a good idea for new projects to try to involve everyone who shows the slightest interest :-) Since lack of too many active participants is one of our problems here, if we are setting up new lists maybe we should start with one. > I think having Scout on a separate website makes sense given that they will have completely different release cycles and that we will not be shipping scout artifacts by default along with juddi bundles. Seems like it would make things less confusing to newcomers to jUDDI. I'm not sure who else has committed changes for Scout other than myself recently, but I'd prefer to keep the JIRA component separate since they have different release version numbers. I don't have any opinion on the lists. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: scout-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: scout-dev-help@ws.apache.org