Re: Re: *** Important **** Avalon/Frotress debate

Last email as my family yells from the garage :-)....this is too important.

You are right, that vote was indeed taken.  But there is enough 
discontent amongst the original authors of Avalon and the users of the 
non-Merlin containers, that there is an uproar with that decision..we 
are all trying to make good sense prevail and reverse that direction.  
Go to the archives of their developer mailing list and look at some of 
the discussions from last couple of days.

Shash

Stefan Burkard wrote:

> hi there
>
> when i read the news on the avalon-website it seems to me that the 
> discussion is already finished?!?
> http://avalon.apache.org/news/SinglePlatform.html
>
> greetings
> stefan
>
>
> Shash Chatterjee wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> If you have invested time and money in writing or using 
>> Keel/Fortress/Avalon
>> components, please pay attention.  There is discussion in Avalon land 
>> on the
>> future of Fortress (which Keel depends on).  I have included my response
>> below, but if any of  you care to, please send your opinion in.
>>
>> If you aren't subscribed to the avalon developer's list, subscribe here:
>> http://avalon.apache.org/mailing-lists.html
>> It is also reachable through your newsreader:
>> news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.avalon.devel
>>
>> Shash
>>
>> Here's my 2c on the topic:
>>
>> [1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance
>>  [2] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP
>>  [3] Fortress moves to D-Haven
>>  [4] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here)
>>  [99999] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate
>>
>> (lower is more priority, 1 is better, 2 is worse.)
>>
>> I don't know how to show associations in this format.  Here's what I 
>> really want:
>>
>> [1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance, binary compatibility, 
>> and new
>> enhancements/features. At the same time, have a defined migration 
>> path with
>> binary compatibility to the unified Avalon container (must support 
>> features
>> ECM, Phoenix, Fortress users have come to depend upon, even though 
>> they may
>> not technically be the best solutions).  I'll also add that I am 
>> volunteering
>> to help with maintaining and enhancing Fortress as part of a team.
>>
>> Shash
>>
>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on 
>>> forever. 
>>
>>
>> Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form of a 
>> vote, but it
>> is not binding.  It is only a way to show your preference.  Please put a
>> number of the order of preference that you have for what to do with 
>> Fortress.
>>  If any of the options is completely disagreeable put a -1 next to it.
>>
>>> [] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance
>>> [] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP
>>> [] Fortress moves to D-Haven
>>> [] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here)
>>> [] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate
>>>
>>> This is merely an opinion poll, so please don't write real long 
>>> comments. 
>>
>>
>> If you have a new option, write it in.  The results of the opinion 
>> poll will
>> feed a proposal I have so that we can move along quickly. 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> User mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.keelframework.org/listinfo.cgi/user-keelframework.org