|Gord Tanner||Jul 20, 2012 4:20 pm|
|Filip Maj||Jul 21, 2012 3:12 pm|
|Ross Gardler||Jul 21, 2012 8:00 pm|
|gtan...@gmail.com||Jul 22, 2012 9:41 am|
|Laurent Hasson||Jul 22, 2012 10:02 am|
|eduardo pelegri-llopart||Jul 22, 2012 10:16 am|
|Ross Gardler||Jul 22, 2012 10:19 am|
|Paul Plaquette||Jul 23, 2012 2:26 am|
|Laurent Hasson||Jul 24, 2012 6:15 pm|
|Filip Maj||Jul 25, 2012 10:45 am|
|Dan Silivestru||Jul 25, 2012 11:02 am|
|Michael Brooks||Jul 25, 2012 5:12 pm|
|Paul Plaquette||Jul 26, 2012 6:57 am|
|gtan...@gmail.com||Jul 26, 2012 7:06 am|
|Jukka Zitting||Jul 26, 2012 7:25 am|
|Ross Gardler||Jul 26, 2012 7:53 am|
|Filip Maj||Jul 26, 2012 10:04 am|
|Ken Wallis||Jul 26, 2012 10:51 am|
|Filip Maj||Jul 26, 2012 11:10 am|
|gtan...@gmail.com||Jul 26, 2012 11:18 am|
|Ross Gardler||Jul 26, 2012 11:36 am|
|Brian LeRoux||Jul 26, 2012 11:49 am|
|Filip Maj||Jul 26, 2012 1:29 pm|
|Ross Gardler||Jul 26, 2012 1:58 pm|
|Jukka Zitting||Jul 30, 2012 6:53 am|
|Ross Gardler||Jul 30, 2012 7:04 am|
|Jukka Zitting||Jul 30, 2012 7:06 am|
|Ross Gardler||Jul 30, 2012 7:31 am|
|Michael Brooks||Jul 30, 2012 8:56 am|
|Ross Gardler||Jul 30, 2012 9:21 am|
|Gord Tanner||Jul 30, 2012 2:18 pm|
|Ross Gardler||Jul 31, 2012 7:49 am|
|Jukka Zitting||Jul 31, 2012 10:03 am|
|Dan Silivestru||Jul 31, 2012 10:07 am|
|Gord Tanner||Aug 2, 2012 8:58 am|
|Ross Gardler||Aug 3, 2012 12:52 am|
|Dan Silivestru||Aug 3, 2012 5:24 am|
|Subject:||Re: [ATTN MENTOR] Re: DISCUSS: Ripple as a sub-project of Cordova|
|From:||Filip Maj (fi...@adobe.com)|
|Date:||Jul 26, 2012 1:29:19 pm|
Ross, I would love to become more familiar with the specific reasoning, when you have time to share it.
On 7/26/12 11:49 AM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
I think Ripple as a stand alone is probably the best place for it conceptually. From an infrastructure standpoint there is so much overlap between the projects its seems inefficient so its really the only place I'm having difficulty reconciling. If Ripple does go TLP then it has to have all the git repo, issue tracker, wiki, website, and mailing list ceremony that we kinda already enjoy in this space. That said, having all that stuff decoupled is also not a bad thing at all.
Ultimately, I'm very happy to see the code joining us at Apache and whatever choice the RIM creators/committers/contributors decide we support!
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Ross Gardler <rgar...@opendirective.com> wrote:
Whilst Cordova can see idle in any light or likes, from the ASF perspective it is just a project. The ASF is the umbrella organisation and it resists the idea of projects becoming umbrellas. There are good, community focused reasons for this. Reasons that come from practical experiences within this foundation. Unfortunately I'm on a mobile so providing references right now is hard.
I'm happy to explore this further if people want to understand it.
That being said, I am not suggesting I'd object to either approach being discussed here. I only object to a justification that hinges on Cordova being an umbrella project.
From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness On Jul 26, 2012 7:19 PM, <gtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
I sometimes see cordova not as a specific platform (or set of APIs) but as a leader in the open mobile web. If we are able to step away from the idea of cordova being a singular platform but the bleeding edge of mobile web r & d it makes sense to have ripple be a part of that.
I might be getting caught up in religious zealotry but that is kind of the vision I see for cordova and seeing ripple fit really well into that vision.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:13:57 To: call...@incubator.apache.org<call...@incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: call...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [ATTN MENTOR] Re: DISCUSS: Ripple as a sub-project of Cordova
You can definitely count on some of us Cordova committers (Michael Brooks, myself) to continue contributing to Ripple. Hopefully we can encourage others in our committer community as well as abroad to do the same.
On 7/26/12 10:51 AM, "Ken Wallis" <kwal...@rim.com> wrote:
I would prefer that we have a pretty good idea of what the final resting place should be and work towards that right away. While it probably is fairly "easy" on the Apache side to promote a sub-project into a top-level one, it could cause headaches for any downstream consumers of the project if it would involve repository moves, renaming, what-have-you. If the move could be fairly transparent then I don't have an issue on this front. ;)
In general though, I agree that the biggest question will be one of community. From where things stand, Ripple will not be solely tied to Cordova, it will have other uses. With the importance that the Cordova community is putting on Ripple, I have the feeling that there will be enough interconnections to help foster a strong enough community around Ripple as a top-level project. (I hope) there will be shared committers, Cordova consumption of the Ripple project, continued joint ventures in terms of community out-reach and involvement, Cordova community shared learnings on becoming an Apache project and navigating the process, etc. I see the community aspect as a risk if Ripple were to be a top-level project, but with the Cordova community support, I think it will be a small one.
Product Manager BlackBerry WebWorks
Research In Motion
(905) 629-4746 x14369
________________________________________ From: Filip Maj [fi...@adobe.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:07 PM To: call...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [ATTN MENTOR] Re: DISCUSS: Ripple as a sub-project of Cordova
In my mind the core issue is about community, not about development.
With that in mind, and taking Ross' point below, I think it makes sense to have it as a stand-alone project.
So in conclusion: both are viable paths IMO, and we do not get to a conclusion haha.
What about the idea of introducing Ripple into Cordova for the start, and then later splitting it out? Seems like then we could kick-start Ripple's exposure and community/committer interaction by leveraging what Cordova already has. If that sounds acceptable, then my question would be, at what point does it make sense to put Ripple into its own top-level project?
On 7/26/12 7:53 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rgar...@opendirective.com> wrote:
+1 to everything Jukka said below.
Another way of looking at it is "will the Ripple community be a sub-set of the Cordova community", if yes then sub-project is probably best. If not, i.e. there will be members of the Ripple community who are not also members of the Cordova community, then it probably ought to be a separate project to maximise its visibility as a separate community.
On 26 July 2012 15:25, Jukka Zitting <jukk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:06 PM, <gtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a lot of overlap between the cordova and ripple communities and I was originally hoping to foster their community into ours ;)
I guess the main question here is whether Cordova committers will be working on / looking at Ripple code and vice versa on a regular basis. If that's the case (i.e. there's significant overlap in actual development activity), then having the codebases in one project is a good approach. weinre is a good example of such a case.
If not (for example if separate mailing lists are needed, etc.), then it's best for both codebases to have their own projects even if there's overlap on the level of individual committers.
The decision on this doesn't need to be final, as projects can always split or merge projects later on, but starting with at least a good approximation of the ultimate or ideal community/project structure will of course make things much easier.
-- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.