incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Dekany <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Freemarker Incubation proposal
Date Sat, 23 May 2015 00:30:54 GMT
That's a good point. And these are also the things that are good fits
for new committers (as opposed to evolving the core). With similar
logic I'm looking for people who want to focus on improving Spring MVC
integration for example. Or even Sturts integration (last time I saw
it, it made no justice for FM). Now it might sounds like a chicken-egg
problem (if *I* don't do it, there will be no committers, etc.), but
of course I try to stick to core development in the little time I find
for Freemarker. So finding contributors for these kind of "extension"
and tooling stuff is one thing I hope for in this process.

Saturday, May 23, 2015, 1:04:57 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:

> As an interesting aside, increasing the scope of Freemarker might improve
> sexiness.
> Consider extending to be a Scala templating engine.  Or some similar small
> effort that ropes in a new community.
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>> wrote:
>> Some misc comments on the great feedback we have received so far (thanks
>> to all for your help and interest):
>> * Sergio, Ralph, we are happy to have you as mentors of Freemarker. I have
>> edited the proposal document to include you in the mentors group; five
>> mentors is plenty, so we should be good under this aspect. Jacques, you
>> offered to mentor in another thread; thanks but for mentoring it's required
>> to be a member of the IPMC or of the ASF
>> * I agree with Bertrand and Ted that it will be mandatory for this project
>> to build a larger community: in fact we are aware about this and are
>> determined to work hard to grow an healthy (even if small) community, if we
>> will be accepted in the Incubator; some good ideas have been proposed in
>> this thread by John and Chris about how to do this and we will discuss
>> other ideas as well
>> * Julian and Ralph mentioned Velocity as a somewhat similar project; it is
>> definitely true that there are similarities in scope (they are both Java
>> template engines) but we don't think that merging them would be a good fit
>> because there are big differences in the architecture, codebase, philosophy
>> and history; as you have suggested we are going to include a sentence that
>> explains the relationship with Velocity in our proposal
>> Regards,
>> Jacopo
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

 Daniel Dekany

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

View raw message