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

Bobby Rullo br at osafoundation.org
Fri Feb 3 10:50:44 PST 2006

Comments inline...

On Feb 3, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Brian Moseley wrote:
> i don't see any reason to change how svn is structured. it's already
> structured as an umbrella (the server repo) with many subprojects
> (cosmo, scooby, ical4j, jackrabbit, osaf-commons, derby, etc).

Wholeheartedly agree.

> i do think that segregating the cosmo and scooby communities is, in
> hindsight, a poor decision. take irc for instance. a lot of discussion
> happens on the #scooby channel that would be just as appropriate on
> #cosmo, and vice versa, but unless an interested party is on both he
> will miss some of what goes on. i don't think it's true that cosmo
> folks are uninterested in the ui stuff happening over at scooby - both
> bkirsch and i have extensive ui dev background - and i'd like to soak
> up as much of that conversation as i can even if i'm directly
> participating. keeping cosmo and scooby irc and mail separate seems
> artificial at this point.

I have no problem with merging IRC chat either.

> i also think that this artificial separation has helped keep bobby and
> me from feeling empowered to contribute to each other's code. i know
> that sometimes i wake up with much more interest in what's going on
> with scooby that day than with cosmo, but because i'm not "on the
> scooby team", it doesn't feel right to offer to work on one of their
> tasks. similarly, bobby seems reluctant to get his hands dirty with
> the cosmo reports code, when he's currently the person to whom that
> code is most important, and indeed he understands how it's supposed to
> work much better than either me or bkirsch. so i think making us all
> part of one project with explicit commit access to the entire server
> svn repo, would address this. yes, i know that the scooby team could
> accept me as a committer and vice versa, but again, that seems
> artificial and overly complicated.

The only thing that keeps from me feeling un-empowered  or reluctant  
to making commits to cosmo is a lack of understanding of all its  
components (the way stuff is stored in the JCR repo and the indexer  
mostly) but the cosmo team has made me feel very comfortable making  
changes when I can. (Right now there is nothing blocking my Scooby  
work FYI).

Explicit commit access however is a good thing just so that we have  
established policies for when outside contributors start popping up.

> so, just to be clear, i propose that we formally create an "osaf
> sharing server" project with cosmo and scooby as subprojects, with
> unified community tools, project wiki, and committer pool (with access
> to the entire server repo). cosmo, scooby, and snarf (probably
> renamed) continue to be separate bugzilla products and have separate
> process/planning docs (subsections of the wiki), but we integrate
> their installation docs and faqs and so forth to the extent that it
> makes sense.
> thoughts?

Works for me.

More information about the Cosmo mailing list