[Cosmo] A couple big ideas: cosmo release and server project merge

Ted Leung twl at osafoundation.org
Thu Feb 2 18:48:18 PST 2006


On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> One possible fix to avoid having another SVN module, and thus  
> require another name, is to combine Cosmo and Scooby under one SVN  
> module, and have a "scooby-complete" download or build that  
> includes everything Snarf does.  When BCM thought of this today in  
> the server meeting there were surprised approval sounds all around  
> the room and people also thought of the advantages of moving to a  
> single mailing list and IRC channel if we'd like.  We'd keep  
> releases of Cosmo and Scooby still possibly independent.  E.g. a  
> release of Cosmo might happen in one month, and a release of Scooby  
> with a "scooby-complete" including that release of Cosmo could  
> happen a week later, a month later, or whatever seems best.   
> Preserving the ability to do independent releases of the sharing  
> server and the calendar WebUI, what's the best way to manage both  
> in SVN? in community forums?

For the record, I made neither approval nor disapproval noises.  I  
think we have decide whether we have one project or two...

The rationale that I understood (before today) for having two  
projects includes:
1. Scooby could sit atop any CalDAV server not just Cosmo
2. People who are looking for a CalDAV server might  be interested in  
Cosmo but not Scooby

Arguments that I heard (today) in favor of having one project:
1. We want ease of installation - that kind of implies one project,  
although I don't think it requires it.
2. There are some pieces of code that might be in the margin in  
between Cosmo and Scooby, which might have to be a separate project.   
Which I think is what the background idea behind Snarf was.  But  
Snarf as originally presented was mostly about build configurations,  
at least until bcm and Bobby started bringing up these other  
management components.

Are we going to merge product planning as well as merging the code?    
If we just have one project, does it make sense to keep the two  
pieces on the same release schedule?  If not, then doesn't that mean  
we have two projects?   One problem that I see with merging the two  
projects is that integrated projects take longer to ship, since you  
have to wait for everybody to be ready.  I'd hate to see the pace of  
Cosmo development/releases slow down (which I think negatively  
impacts Chandler) in order to keep in sync with Scooby.

Ted



More information about the Cosmo mailing list