I see nothing wrong with a sandbox, particularly since I think sometimes seeing code is a better way to make spark discussion than trying to discuss everything up front. In order to facilitate contribution and individual communication styles, and to promote more contributions in general, I think this is a good step.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Marius Bogoevici
<marius.bogoevici@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it is a good idea. Discussions can and should take place, but
IMO an opend sandbox would be a good place to stage code for new
features without endangering the stability of the whole project.
On 12-06-26 3:39 PM, Jason Porter wrote:
> Hey everyone!
>
> I wanted to bring up the idea of having a sandbox to add bits and other
> non-core extensions. We have a great bunch of people from the
> Seam development group looking to add their extensions, but they're either
> not on the roadmap for DS, or are very far down. I suggest we setup a
> sandbox on github people can write to, or at least do pull requests to so
> we can get some of these modules and other ideas in and pull them into core
> as we get there. We can also use this as a vetting ground for new ideas and
> other things which may not exactly fit into core, like the forge extension.
>
> To do this we need to
>
> 1. Setup the repo somewhere
> 2. Seed it with a basic structure (pom.xml, contribution instructions, etc)
> 3. Get some CI setup somewhere (we could leverage OpenShift for this if
> needed)
>
> What does everyone else think? I've cc'd the Seam Development list here
> hoping to get some feedback from them as well and hopefully rekindle some
> of the fire we had there.
>
_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev