[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[2]: Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration
From: |
Manuel Guesdon |
Subject: |
Re[2]: Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration |
Date: |
Thu, 4 Mar 2004 22:53:39 +0100 (CET) |
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:40:17 +0100 Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>
wrote:
>| Anyway, lets stop that now. Its quite clear that gnustep-web core
>| developers are not interested in cooperation.
Once again, that's not true, at least for me.
>| Why not just explicitely state that you are keeping to your codebase
>| whatever?
That's not true, at least for me.
I'd only like we (all people which want to) discuss about how to cooperate,
where to put things,
dependencies, licencies problem (if any), maintainers questions, etc... There's
a 2 threads
about part of this: "CVS hosting issues (was: Re: Frameworks integration)" and
"Frameworks integration".
Another point, as we've started to talk about changes in some part GNUstep
project (not only WO part
but also xml part,...), AFAIK, Richard is in hollidays for few days and as he
is one of the main
maintainers of GNUstep project, I think we can wait few days, until he's back,
to have its opinion
about all this. Your proposition is only 7 days old and I don't think all
GNUstep contributors have
given their opinion. Iknow you've developped a lot of things which are
interesting but I think
we can save time if we think a little about all this before doing things. Few
days is nothing on
a ten years old project, IMHO.
About "keeping to your codebase whatever?": personnaly, one think I don't want
is to invest time
studying SOPE or starting a merge and after that, more or less quickly, find
that there's a big
problem (organisation, license, project orientation, maintainer choices or
god knows what).
You may say it is LGPL projects so one can fork if he doesn't agree on
something but,
_in this kind of situation_, I think I'd prefer to keep on working like
before, just to avoid
spending time and because I know better gsxml, gsweb stuff than Slyrix stuff.
I don't say this will append and I hope not, of course; I don't say there will
be problems; I don't
say there will be a fork;I don't say I won't work to study SOPE or merge. I'm
only carefull.
There's nothing personnal against you, Helge, in this: I also had questions,
even if, for
example, Adam or Richard (*) have suggested such changes.
Just me .02 cents. It's free projects and everyone is free here.
Manuel
(*) I often mention only Richard and/or Adam to avoid forgetting people in a
partial list and offend
someone :-)
--
______________________________________________________________________
Manuel Guesdon - ORANGE CONCEPT <mguesdon@orange-concept.com>
14 rue Jean-Baptiste Clement - 93200 Saint-Denis - France
Tel: +33 1 4940 0997 - Fax: +33 1 4940 0998
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, David Wetzel, 2004/03/03
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Helge Hess, 2004/03/03
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, David Ayers, 2004/03/04
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Helge Hess, 2004/03/08
- Building SOPE with GNUstep, David Ayers, 2004/03/08
- Re: Building SOPE with GNUstep, Helge Hess, 2004/03/10
- Re: Building SOPE with GNUstep, David Ayers, 2004/03/12
- Re: Building SOPE with GNUstep, Helge Hess, 2004/03/12
Re[2]: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Manuel Guesdon, 2004/03/05
Re[2]: Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration,
Manuel Guesdon <=