-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martijn Faassen wrote: > > In this process, I've seen the people who happen to be hosting source > code in their own, company-controlled repositories, make this line of > argument rather often: > > "We cannot host ECM on your open z3 base, because z3 base doesn't have > X, and we really need X for ECM, and gosh, only our own > repository/website right now has this feature. Of course *if* your z3 > base would offer this feature we're entirely open to moving over to it!" > > For features you could fill in 'Trac', or 'copyright assignment policy', > or 'a powerful CMS which has workspaces' or whatever. > > While these arguments are, I'm sure, made in all innocence and while > these features are obviously important enough to these parties that they > support them in their own environment, this is not a very good argument > to use in this discussion for the reason that it *seems* self-serving, > serving only a single party in this cooperation, even though it's likely > not to be the case and the party has the very best of intentions. > > codespeak.net provides enough services to work with large groups of > people on complicated projects such as PyPy and Five. The Z3 Base > currently has what I think is the prettiest, most accessible website in > the whole Zope 3 world with its own identity and everything, and it's > just a bit of plain HTML that took me a few afternoons to get ready. > > So can we please avoid this particular argument? I don't think so. No way to write HTML or whatever wiki for the specifications. I mean, we need to be able to work on document and approve them together in teams etc... It's like : "look we are building an ECM but ourselves think it's better to use wiki or html !" Definitely, I'm against. Hosting the portal on codespeak or wherver is fine though. We need to use dockbook and other open formats that allows us to write offline while on travel, being able to merge the documents, aprove themp etc... I'm in a process to built a portal with workspaces /teams / publications and custom developpement if needed etc... It can move to codespeak or wherever after or can it ? It can be ready in couple of hours. I'm willing to do it now. so ? BTW, the goal is to have more something like this : http://java.sun.com/ than : http://www.zope.org/DevHome/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/FrontPage Let's add some hipe to this project ;) > > We're in a bootstrapping phase here, and codespeak.net is more than > adequate to support development. It's also important to present a > neutral area in which developers can cooperate. And this is *my* feature > that only the z3 base currently offers and nobody else can. Five > wouldn't have gone anywhere if I'd let it stay in infrae.com. > > I'm personally not entirely comfortable to start projects at > svn.nuxeo.com and host them there. Having that Nuxeo bit in there makes > promotion of the project to open source developers and companies a lot > harder. > It's never been the point. No decision has been made regarding source repository. Codespeak will be fine to host the svn repo if people do want to. I'm fine with this. J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France) CPS Plateform : http://www.cps-project.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFChLy2GhoG8MxZ/pIRAjmMAJ9hNygGQmdhlKWtWpBc5MgNQ8YvxgCcDyRc nnFbdM8x4vRslyYX+prJYxI= =d16c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hosting: Nuxeo: Zope service provider