commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John Spackman" <>
Subject Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/FederatedCommons
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:13:56 GMT
Hi Paul,

Great :)

I'm working on some addition patches for JELLY-184 and a few others; they 
don't always make a lot of sense added to a single JIRA entry though, IE 
patch for one bug affecting the patch script for another - is it OK to just 
email an update here instead?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Libbrecht" <>
To: "Commons Developers List" <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/FederatedCommons

We're converging John here,

I'll try to keep up with patches and commits in order for you to
become a committer.
Henri, can you please agree that we "try to make jelly enter a
maintained mode", within a month or so, before we show "not actively
maintained" on the web-page?

thanks in advance


Le 11-nov.-08 à 06:28, John Spackman a écrit :

> Hi Paul,
> I agree that this is _not_ something where a technical solution is 
> _needed_ to go forward, I'm simply trying to keep the options open  so 
> that Jelly does not disappear (IMHO marking a project as "Not  Actively 
> Maintained" is the beginning of the end).
> IMHO keeping Jelly in Commons Proper is the best choice for Jelly,  while 
> the 2nd choice is to keep it alive elsewhere as a federated  Commons is a 
> close second, the 3rd choice as a last resort is to  create a fork.  And I 
> also agree that you need to be able to see who  you're supporting, hence 
> the reason for a patch submission to JIRA  yesterday (with a follow-up in 
> response to your comments today).
> John
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Libbrecht" <
> >
> To: "Commons Developers List" <>
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/ 
> FederatedCommons
> John,
> Le 10-nov.-08 à 07:11, John Spackman a écrit :
>> Yes, kind of - I've only recently come across Git and the concept  of 
>> DVCS but it was my intention to look at using a DVCS for this.
>> But DVCS "only" does source code - setting up a seperate branch  only 
>> works if the community at large see the new branch, whereas  the  Commons 
>> group are considering marking Jelly as "No Longer   Maintained" and 
>> moving the repository out of the main branch.
> Hey no!
> It's lacking maintainer and we shall be more than happy to make you a
> committer having been able to measure the quality of contributions!
> The problem is not the technical approach of DVCS, the problem is only
> endorsement: it seems rather normal that a person that hasn't been
> seen is first a bit observed or?
> Setting up a separate fork for a while to achieve this sounds an
> avenue to me.
> Suggesting patches on jira or any other method or paced-down
> contribution should be supported.
> I'm happy to receive your source tree from time to time, in full,
> inspect it and commit it as is for example.
>> From my point of view, I would only want to perform a public  branch 
>> with the endorsment of the Commons team; IMHO it's  important for new 
>> and existing users to see a future for the  project, and for there to  be 
>> a link from the official Commons  website to the federated Jelly  site. 
>> The original downloads would  remain for backward  compatability, but the 
>> Commons site would  clearly refer users onto  the new site for upgrades 
>> and future  development.
> I don't see any reason why commons would say "things are happening
> elsewhere" while it could happen here real soon now. The issue is
> endorsement and not distribution.
> paul
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message