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

Bobby Rullo br at osafoundation.org
Fri Feb 3 10:30:59 PST 2006


I'm not even sure if I like the idea of one svn module, regardless of  
whether we call it one project or not.

You still want to be able to run cosmo and scooby on different  
servers (I do anyway!) so there would be different codebases for the  
apps now called scooby and cosmo so that will require that they maybe  
in different SVN 'modules' but still need their own  
directories....which would need names. And you'd still need the code  
which packages it all together somehow (now called Snarf) so that  
would be it's own directory...

Plus branching would be annoying (I think) since you'll want to be  
branching Scooby sometimes but not Cosmo and vice versa if they are  
on different release schedules. I guess I don't see the advantage of  
having one SVN module.

For the sake of community however, we can call everything one  
project, and have what is now Cosmo and Scooby (perhaps even  
Chandler!) be sub-projects. Think Apache Jakarta Commons - the  
Commons projects have a shared goal and vision, but various sub- 
projects (net, lang, validator) with their own release cycles.  
Another example is Microsoft Office.

Imagine if everything was called Chandler (for example) - we'd have  
Chandler Desktop (now Chandler), Chandler Web (Scooby) and Chandler  
Server (Cosmo).

On a more practical note, I give a +1 to releasing Cosmo .3 in time  
for Scooby .1 -- assuming '.3' means that CalDAV reports issues are  
taken care of (at least).

Bobby

On Feb 3, 2006, at 1:00 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>
> On Feb 2, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Ted Leung wrote:
>
>> 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...
>
> that's why we're going to the list!  that meeting was the wrong  
> place to determine consensus, I was just trying to say that we'd  
> heard some encouragement to bring this up.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> The alignments between projects and other pieces are uncertain in  
> many ways. As you point out, one could merge product planning.   
> Chandler is one project with two development groups and both  
> separate and combined status meetings, whereas Cosmo and Scooby are  
> two projects today but with one status meeting.  I don't think that  
> having one SVN repository necessarily implies we would need to  
> change product planning practices.  I guess the project alignment  
> issue overall is one that we're actively questioning various parts  
> of, rather than going with the unconscious assumptions we'd  
> previously used.
>
> thanks!
> lisa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scooby mailing list
> Scooby at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scooby




More information about the Cosmo mailing list