commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Libbrecht <>
Subject Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/FederatedCommons
Date Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:16:36 GMT

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.

View raw message