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 Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:19:08 GMT
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:

View raw message