portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <...@douma.nu>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Move to confluence and cwiki for project website and documentation
Date Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:39:27 GMT
Ugh, as David already pointed out, x-posting such a message leads to confusion where follow
up responses should be send too.
I should have known better and send this to general@ in the first place.

Anyway, sending this one last time "across the board" so everyone is aware to follow up please
on general@ now.

Now in response to Noel, see further comments below


Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> +1, but ...
> 
>> we now are working on a major overhaul of the Jetspeed-2 build system
>> (dropping the old maven-1/2 structure and replacing it with a clean
>> maven-2 project rewrite from scratch)
> 
> How's about dropping Maven entirely, and using a proper Ant build system?
> :-)  ESPECIALLY if you are no longer going to use Maven to generate site
> content.
Right, why not add some more confusion to the x-posting mess by hijacking the proposal and
add some Maven v.s. Ant controversy ;)

I just want to say (now) that I'm of course open to discuss this further, but please in a
separate thread.
While I might not be the biggest maven fan on this planet (for sure), I still do see merit
in using it.
Furthermore, moving to Confluence doesn't mean we no longer can use maven to generate some
metadata/reports/javadoc pages etc. for integrating in the site as well.

> 
>> - switch to using this Confluence+cwiki solution
> 
>> - also allow selected end users (non-committers but with a CLA on file)
>>   to maintain these official documentation spaces
> 
> If they have a CLA on file, and are contributing to the official project
> documentation, they *ARE* Committers.  They just aren't coders, and don't
> have SVN access.
Well, that's not how I understand how it is described on the CWIKI page, or even here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
Although a committer must have a CLA on file, can't a "contributer" have a CLA on file too
without being a committer?
My interpretation (and idea behind this) was a more "light weight" process could be followed
to allow contributers modifying official project documentation once 
they signed a CLA.
But if having a CLA on file == committer, I think it only slightly limits our flexibility
here and won't really matter much for the proposal.

Regards,

Ate

> 
> 	--- Noel
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org


Mime
View raw message