Tobago and MyFaces

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

In the Tobago vote thread, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:

> The tobago team list is:
>
> http://myfaces.apache.org/tobago/team-list.html

Is there some reason we're keeping a separate list for Tobago?

The Tomahawk team list inherits from the myfaces-master pom, and shows everyone:

   http://myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/team-list.html

I can see on Jim's page [1] that there is a 'myfaces-tobago' svn auth
group, but everyone in it is also in the 'myfaces' group and so has
access to the entire myfaces codebase.  Is this just something left
over from incubation?

Since the myfaces-tobago svn auth group isn't actually doing anything,
let's ask Manfred to remove it.  And let's also hook the Tobago build
up to the myfaces-master pom as its parent, so that we can share the
committer list (and reduce some other duplication, since the mailing
lists are in both places now.)

We're all MyFaces committers... anyone who is willing and able should
feel free -- and welcome -- to work on any part of the project.

Thoughts?

[1] http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html

-- 
Wendy

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>]

Yes, that's true, +1

On 9/13/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> +1 to get rid of that as well... thanks craig for pointing it out
>
>
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 9/13/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/12/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > There was a "gentleman agreement" that there is no commit from Tobagos
> >> > to MyFaces, after the toboago incubation was done.
> >>
> >>
> >> That is exactly ***not*** the expected scenario in an Apache TLP.  All
> >> committers to MyFaces should be able to commit to any of the MyFaces
> >> code.
> >>
>
>

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>]

+1 to get rid of that as well... thanks craig for pointing it out


Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> +1
> 
> 
> On 9/13/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/12/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > There was a "gentleman agreement" that there is no commit from Tobagos
>> > to MyFaces, after the toboago incubation was done.
>>
>>
>> That is exactly ***not*** the expected scenario in an Apache TLP.  All
>> committers to MyFaces should be able to commit to any of the MyFaces
>> code.
>>

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

+1


On 9/13/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/12/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > There was a "gentleman agreement" that there is no commit from Tobagos
> > to MyFaces, after the toboago incubation was done.
>
>
> That is exactly ***not*** the expected scenario in an Apache TLP.  All
> committers to MyFaces should be able to commit to any of the MyFaces code.
>
>
> > Bernd and Volker
> > are committers of MyFaces.
>
>
> Interestingly, the SVN permissions already allow all of the "Tobago
> committers" to commit anything anywhere in MyFaces, as it should be.
>
> +1 on cleaning out the remaining cruft from the incubation process, and
> considering all MyFaces committers as being equal.
>
> > I am fine to add the rest of them too!
> >
> > -Matthias
>
>
> Craig
>
>
> > On 9/13/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In the Tobago vote thread, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The tobago team list is:
> > > >
> > > > http://myfaces.apache.org/tobago/team-list.html
> > >
> > > Is there some reason we're keeping a separate list for Tobago?
> > >
> > > The Tomahawk team list inherits from the myfaces-master pom, and shows
> everyone:
> > >
> > >    http://myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/team-list.html
> > >
> > > I can see on Jim's page [1] that there is a 'myfaces-tobago' svn auth
> > > group, but everyone in it is also in the 'myfaces' group and so has
> > > access to the entire myfaces codebase.  Is this just something left
> > > over from incubation?
> > >
> > > Since the myfaces-tobago svn auth group isn't actually doing anything,
> > > let's ask Manfred to remove it.  And let's also hook the Tobago build
> > > up to the myfaces-master pom as its parent, so that we can share the
> > > committer list (and reduce some other duplication, since the mailing
> > > lists are in both places now.)
> > >
> > > We're all MyFaces committers... anyone who is willing and able should
> > > feel free -- and welcome -- to work on any part of the project.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wendy
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On 9/15/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

> Sorry to become slightly OT again since this affects both threads
>
> Ok since the components core will be an ongoing discussion...
> following, is there going to be a refork for 1.1.4?
>
> If not I would love to have this weekend to push dojo at least
> into Tom, otherwise I have to postpone another week, there was no real
> negative voting unless a rebranch of Tomahawk 1.1.4 happens.

The 1.1.4 branch is so old (June 21?) that it will need to be
re-branched no matter what happens.

I added a note to the STATUS document [1] about re-branching 'just
prior to the Dojo upgrade' forgetting once again that at this point it
only affects the sandbox.

With Subversion, we can copy the branch from any revision, so the fact
that we need to re-branch should not stop you from doing whatever you
need to do on the trunk.

Just be sure to open a JIRA issue and refer to it in every commit
message. :)  That will help us sort out which commits might need to be
merged to the branch, later.

So it sounds like we'll want

 * Tomahawk 1.1.4 with more or less what's on the trunk right now,

 * Tomahawk 1.1.5 with the new Dojo stuff and some components that can
then move out of the sandbox

 * A decision on the components-commons code.  That might happen
before or after Tomahawk 1.1.5 is tagged, but should not hold up what
Werner wants to do right now.

Am I close?

[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/current/STATUS.txt

-- 
Wendy

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>]

Wendy Smoak schrieb:
> On 9/14/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> 
>> for now we have the pressing issue, that I need
>> dojo down from the sandbox so that we can move on.
>> The Tobago people also want to use dojo...
>> The dojo binding code I use uses some myfaces-tomahawk specific helper
>> and tools classes...
> 
> No argument, but that's a different thread. :)
> 
> I've started a wiki page to capture the discussion about the
> components-commons:
> 
>  http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/ComponentsCommons
> 
> If someone has time to find links to the recent threads about this
> common code and summarize the discussion, that would be great.  I'll
> try to find time this weekend, but I'll likely be finishing up Core
> 1.1.4 and working on Tiles 2.
> 
Sorry to become slightly OT again since this affects both threads

Ok since the components core will be an ongoing discussion...
following, is there going to be a refork for 1.1.4?

If not I would love to have this weekend to push dojo at least
into Tom, otherwise I have to postpone another week, there was no real
negative voting unless a rebranch of Tomahawk 1.1.4 happens.

Once the commons is discussed out, I can move my stuff into commons, no
breakage there will happen either.

The Tobago people can start to use the stuff nevertheless as soon as it
is in Tom, the reason is, all the dojo stuff, except for the initializer
 coponent is purely non visual. A Tomahawk jar will be mandatory until
we have the commons subproject, but it wont interfere (correct me if I
am wrong from the Tobago side)

By the time 1.1.5 is out the situation about the commons hopefully will
be cleared out.

Dont get me wrong, but I want this down in Tom or Commons due to the
fact that the next major task afterwards is to promote a lot of
components down so that people stop using the sandbox for production
purposes.

As I said as soon as the commons situation is cleared up I am the first
one to relocate dojo there (and if needed the tools classes as well)
but I think it is very pressing to push it up asap, so that people can
start to finish their components for promotion.

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On 9/14/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

> for now we have the pressing issue, that I need
> dojo down from the sandbox so that we can move on.
> The Tobago people also want to use dojo...
> The dojo binding code I use uses some myfaces-tomahawk specific helper
> and tools classes...

No argument, but that's a different thread. :)

I've started a wiki page to capture the discussion about the
components-commons:

  http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/ComponentsCommons

If someone has time to find links to the recent threads about this
common code and summarize the discussion, that would be great.  I'll
try to find time this weekend, but I'll likely be finishing up Core
1.1.4 and working on Tiles 2.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>]

Wendy Smoak schrieb:

> That will bring its own set of issues, I'm sure. :)
> 
> Maybe having a top-level project for JSF component libraries, and
> leaving MyFaces to focus on the api and implementation, will make
> sense at some point.
> 

At some point yes, but for now we have the pressing issue, that I need
dojo down from the sandbox so that we can move on.
The Tobago people also want to use dojo...
The dojo binding code I use uses some myfaces-tomahawk specific helper
and tools classes...

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On 9/13/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If, after discussion, we find that Tobago cannot be made compatible
> with Tomahawk, making Tobago self-governing is probably the best
> solution since we have two disparate groups working here.  If Tobago
> is incompatible, it's not fair to the Tobago team to be at the mercy
> of the rest of us.

If they cannot or should not be made compatible, there's nothing
inherently wrong with having two component libraries here.  Or even
three, once Trinidad arrives.

That will bring its own set of issues, I'm sure. :)

Maybe having a top-level project for JSF component libraries, and
leaving MyFaces to focus on the api and implementation, will make
sense at some point.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>]

Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
> 
> I think we're all being constructive.  Some of us didn't realize that
> the Tobago folks were being treated differently.
> 
Actually I never knew about it until I read about it recently, and given
the comments here, most people didn't...

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Zubin Wadia <zw...@gmail.com>]

Mike/Volker,

I was responding to Bernd feeling like a "second-class citizen" - that's not
true and its not a good feeling to foster.

I just want to get this issue out in the open - and sometimes you have to
write ambivalently to bring people's feelings into the open. So yay :).

If PMC members are not in a position to vote lucidly on a release - then you
are correct - it doesn't get the exposure or insight it deserves under
MyFaces. Nobody doubts Tomahawk's place or purpose within MyFaces - and we
should afford the same respect to Tobago.

Z.



On 9/13/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/13/06, Zubin Wadia <zw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Might as well throw my 2 cents in here - while more developers would
> help
> > the cause, the root cause of the conflict lies in the fact that one
> > sub-project moved in a relatively non-aligned manner to the rest. This
> is
> > what needs to change. I don't think making Tobago a top-level ASF
> project
> > will be the solution.
> >
> > We just need to assess what it would take to shape Tobago into a
> seamless
> > composition within MyFaces. So let's have that dialogue.
> >
> > There are no "developer classes" - let's try to be constructive here!
>
> I think we're all being constructive.  Some of us didn't realize that
> the Tobago folks were being treated differently.
>
> I don't agree with your statement that "the root cause of the conflict
> lies in the fact that [Tobago] moved in a relatively non-aligned
> manner to the rest" -- that was the whole point of Tobago -- to
> provide layout and theming/skinning.   Currently layout management has
> not (and maybe cannot) be done with any other rendering kit involved.
>
> If, after discussion, we find that Tobago cannot be made compatible
> with Tomahawk, making Tobago self-governing is probably the best
> solution since we have two disparate groups working here.  If Tobago
> is incompatible, it's not fair to the Tobago team to be at the mercy
> of the rest of us.
>
> After all, Shale and Tomahawk are similar (probably more so than
> Tobago and Tomahawk as things stand) and share many of the same
> committers, but no one is suggesting that Shale *must* be a subproject
> of MyFaces.
>

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

On 9/13/06, Zubin Wadia <zw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Might as well throw my 2 cents in here - while more developers would help
> the cause, the root cause of the conflict lies in the fact that one
> sub-project moved in a relatively non-aligned manner to the rest. This is
> what needs to change. I don't think making Tobago a top-level ASF project
> will be the solution.
>
> We just need to assess what it would take to shape Tobago into a seamless
> composition within MyFaces. So let's have that dialogue.
>
> There are no "developer classes" - let's try to be constructive here!

I think we're all being constructive.  Some of us didn't realize that
the Tobago folks were being treated differently.

I don't agree with your statement that "the root cause of the conflict
lies in the fact that [Tobago] moved in a relatively non-aligned
manner to the rest" -- that was the whole point of Tobago -- to
provide layout and theming/skinning.   Currently layout management has
not (and maybe cannot) be done with any other rendering kit involved.

If, after discussion, we find that Tobago cannot be made compatible
with Tomahawk, making Tobago self-governing is probably the best
solution since we have two disparate groups working here.  If Tobago
is incompatible, it's not fair to the Tobago team to be at the mercy
of the rest of us.

After all, Shale and Tomahawk are similar (probably more so than
Tobago and Tomahawk as things stand) and share many of the same
committers, but no one is suggesting that Shale *must* be a subproject
of MyFaces.

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Volker Weber <we...@googlemail.com>]

Hi,

> We just need to assess what it would take to shape Tobago into a seamless
> composition within MyFaces. So let's have that dialogue.

i don't understand what you mean with "shape Tobago into a seamless
composition within MyFaces" .

It looks like here is still the misunderstanding that tobago and
tomahawk will merge, sonner or later. This will imo never the case.
Tomahawk and Tobago are completely different products based on the
same technology.

The goal of tobago is to provide a easy to use library to develop
webapplications, without the need to handle with html, css, javascript
or other output technologies.

Tomahawk is (correct me if i'm wrong) a extension to the standard jsf
html renderkid. you need at least to handle with css to get a layout.

See the live examples on atanion [1] and irian [2] to see the difference.
And take a look at the sources (there are buttons on the pages) !

Regards,
    Volker

[1] http://tobago.atanion.net/tobago-example-demo/faces/overview/intro.jsp
[2] http://www.irian.at/myfaces/home.jsf

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Zubin Wadia <zw...@gmail.com>]

Team,

Might as well throw my 2 cents in here - while more developers would help
the cause, the root cause of the conflict lies in the fact that one
sub-project moved in a relatively non-aligned manner to the rest. This is
what needs to change. I don't think making Tobago a top-level ASF project
will be the solution.

We just need to assess what it would take to shape Tobago into a seamless
composition within MyFaces. So let's have that dialogue.

There are no "developer classes" - let's try to be constructive here!

Zubin.

On 9/13/06, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wendy Smoak wrote:
> > On 9/12/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> That is exactly ***not*** the expected scenario in an Apache TLP.  All
> >> committers to MyFaces should be able to commit to any of the MyFaces
> >> code.
> >
>
> > There aren't so many active developers that I think we need to be
> > concerned about who has access to what.  Rather, there are so few
> > developers working on certain parts of the project that we should be
> > doing everything we can to find *more* of them. :)
>
> I would like to see no difference about a Tobago and a MyFaces
> developer. I don't like the agreement. It looks like a Tobago developer
> is a second class developer. But we are working on the same thing JSF
> and JSF Renderkits.
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
>

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>]

Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On 9/12/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> That is exactly ***not*** the expected scenario in an Apache TLP.  All
>> committers to MyFaces should be able to commit to any of the MyFaces 
>> code.
> 

> There aren't so many active developers that I think we need to be
> concerned about who has access to what.  Rather, there are so few
> developers working on certain parts of the project that we should be
> doing everything we can to find *more* of them. :) 

I would like to see no difference about a Tobago and a MyFaces 
developer. I don't like the agreement. It looks like a Tobago developer 
is a second class developer. But we are working on the same thing JSF 
and JSF Renderkits.

Regards

Bernd

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On 9/12/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:

> That is exactly ***not*** the expected scenario in an Apache TLP.  All
> committers to MyFaces should be able to commit to any of the MyFaces code.

Some TLPs do split the repository -- httpd has a separate
documentation project, and Maven has a fine grained access structure:
maven, maven-plugins, maven-core, maven-continuum, etc.

At MyFaces, though, it sounds like a group of people was given access,
but with an agreement that they wouldn't actually use it.  It's that
artificial division that I'm concerned about and would like to see
eliminated.

There aren't so many active developers that I think we need to be
concerned about who has access to what.  Rather, there are so few
developers working on certain parts of the project that we should be
doing everything we can to find *more* of them. :)

The JSF 1.2 implementation and Tobago are both areas that could use
attention from a more diverse set of developers.

I know we've lost some potential contributors by not applying patches
and getting releases out quickly enough.  Even though it took months
longer than planned, I hope the Core 1.1.4 release is the beginning of
changes for the better on that front.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>]

On 9/12/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> There was a "gentleman agreement" that there is no commit from Tobagos
> to MyFaces, after the toboago incubation was done.


That is exactly ***not*** the expected scenario in an Apache TLP.  All
committers to MyFaces should be able to commit to any of the MyFaces code.


Bernd and Volker
> are committers of MyFaces.


Interestingly, the SVN permissions already allow all of the "Tobago
committers" to commit anything anywhere in MyFaces, as it should be.

+1 on cleaning out the remaining cruft from the incubation process, and
considering all MyFaces committers as being equal.

I am fine to add the rest of them too!
>
> -Matthias


Craig


On 9/13/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the Tobago vote thread, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The tobago team list is:
> > >
> > > http://myfaces.apache.org/tobago/team-list.html
> >
> > Is there some reason we're keeping a separate list for Tobago?
> >
> > The Tomahawk team list inherits from the myfaces-master pom, and shows
> everyone:
> >
> >    http://myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/team-list.html
> >
> > I can see on Jim's page [1] that there is a 'myfaces-tobago' svn auth
> > group, but everyone in it is also in the 'myfaces' group and so has
> > access to the entire myfaces codebase.  Is this just something left
> > over from incubation?
> >
> > Since the myfaces-tobago svn auth group isn't actually doing anything,
> > let's ask Manfred to remove it.  And let's also hook the Tobago build
> > up to the myfaces-master pom as its parent, so that we can share the
> > committer list (and reduce some other duplication, since the mailing
> > lists are in both places now.)
> >
> > We're all MyFaces committers... anyone who is willing and able should
> > feel free -- and welcome -- to work on any part of the project.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > [1] http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html
> >
> > --
> > Wendy
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Volker Weber <we...@googlemail.com>]

Hi,

to clear the "Gentleman agreement" the other tobago committers (idus,
pleff, hennes and lofwyr) needs to be voted official as myfaces
committers by the PMC before we should do this.

Regards,
  Volker

2006/10/17, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> Clearly, everyone is in agreement, so... will someone please move the
> list of committers from the Tobago pom into the myfaces-master pom,
> and then add a <parent> to the Tobago pom?
>
> We can also remove the myfaces-tobago svn auth group. (Manfred?)
>
> Thanks,
> Wendy
>

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

Clearly, everyone is in agreement, so... will someone please move the
list of committers from the Tobago pom into the myfaces-master pom,
and then add a <parent> to the Tobago pom?

We can also remove the myfaces-tobago svn auth group. (Manfred?)

Thanks,
Wendy

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

yeah. fine.

But Bernd and Volker were voted as MYFACES committers *after*
incubation was done ...

-Matthias

On 9/17/06, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For me as the original inventor of the "Gentleman agreement" - the
> wording was during the time of incubation, so it doesn't affect or
> bind their status now anymore.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 9/15/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There was a "gentleman agreement" that there is no commit from Tobagos
> > > to MyFaces, after the toboago incubation was done. Bernd and Volker
> > > are committers of MyFaces.
> >
> > This was only during the incubation period since the decision was made
> > to host the incubated Tobago at MyFaces.  Now that they are out of
> > incubation I agree with Wendy and Craig that there should be no
> > artificial separation here.
> >
> > Sean
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

For me as the original inventor of the "Gentleman agreement" - the
wording was during the time of incubation, so it doesn't affect or
bind their status now anymore.

regards,

Martin

On 9/15/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There was a "gentleman agreement" that there is no commit from Tobagos
> > to MyFaces, after the toboago incubation was done. Bernd and Volker
> > are committers of MyFaces.
>
> This was only during the incubation period since the decision was made
> to host the incubated Tobago at MyFaces.  Now that they are out of
> incubation I agree with Wendy and Craig that there should be no
> artificial separation here.
>
> Sean
>


-- 

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

> There was a "gentleman agreement" that there is no commit from Tobagos
> to MyFaces, after the toboago incubation was done. Bernd and Volker
> are committers of MyFaces.

This was only during the incubation period since the decision was made
to host the incubated Tobago at MyFaces.  Now that they are out of
incubation I agree with Wendy and Craig that there should be no
artificial separation here.

Sean

Re: Tobago and MyFaces

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

There was a "gentleman agreement" that there is no commit from Tobagos
to MyFaces, after the toboago incubation was done. Bernd and Volker
are committers of MyFaces.

I am fine to add the rest of them too!

-Matthias

On 9/13/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the Tobago vote thread, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:
>
> > The tobago team list is:
> >
> > http://myfaces.apache.org/tobago/team-list.html
>
> Is there some reason we're keeping a separate list for Tobago?
>
> The Tomahawk team list inherits from the myfaces-master pom, and shows everyone:
>
>    http://myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/team-list.html
>
> I can see on Jim's page [1] that there is a 'myfaces-tobago' svn auth
> group, but everyone in it is also in the 'myfaces' group and so has
> access to the entire myfaces codebase.  Is this just something left
> over from incubation?
>
> Since the myfaces-tobago svn auth group isn't actually doing anything,
> let's ask Manfred to remove it.  And let's also hook the Tobago build
> up to the myfaces-master pom as its parent, so that we can share the
> committer list (and reduce some other duplication, since the mailing
> lists are in both places now.)
>
> We're all MyFaces committers... anyone who is willing and able should
> feel free -- and welcome -- to work on any part of the project.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1] http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html
>
> --
> Wendy
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com