snarf

On 1/31/06, Ted Leung <twlosafoundation.org>
wrote:
> I think that having a package of Cosmo and Scooby
together is a good
> thing.
>
> I'm not as clear on why this is a separate project. 
Are you really
> going to have a separate subversion, mailing list, irc,
landing pages
> and so forth, just for packaging?

definitely going to have a separate subversion module. cosmo
and
scooby artifacts are dependencies of snarf's build system,
so it makes
sense for several reasons to keep its code independent.

wiki pages also definitely separate. the documentation for
installing
and configuring snarf will be very  different than those for
cosmo and
scooby. i'm definitely refactoring common docs (see the java
server
setup page i wrote up yesterday), but those are the
minority.

irc and mailing list? shrug. they seem like overkill, but it
may not
be completely obvious to the user that doesn't bother to
read the
whole snarf home wiki page where to go for support.
_______________________________________________
Cosmo mailing list
Cosmoosafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo

> On 1/31/06, Ted Leung <twlosafoundation.org>
wrote:
>> I think that having a package of Cosmo and Scooby
together is a good
>> thing.

I also think this is cool.

However, at the moment I have a hard time seeing how this is
going to
help people developing Cosmo. Even assuming my current snarf
build
problems are temporary, I don't see how requiring me to pull
and build
both Cosmo and Snarf and to run some additional scripts to
copy war
files around just to run Cosmo makes anything easier for me.
Not to
mention the new steps required to deploy wars, which I
assume would be
easy to forget (well, I won't personally run into this
unless I actually
write something in Java I guess). Is there something obvious
I am missing?

-- 
  Heikki Toivonen


_______________________________________________
Cosmo mailing list
Cosmoosafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo