Re: PipX, a portable library of XProc pipelines and steps

  Hi Geert,

  There is no process, really.  Discussing it first before sending a
pull request sounds a sensible approach, so we are sure that we agree
before submitting code.  Opening a ticket in order not to loose track
of anything sounds a good idea as well, yes.

  Let's just see where we are going...


Florent Georges

On 18 February 2014 16:09, Geert J. wrote:
> How to reach consensus on contributions? Or are we taking the xproc
> extensions approach, open a new ticket for each contribution, discuss it
> first, then consider putting code in?
> Cheers
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: [] Namens Florent
>> Georges
>> Verzonden: dinsdag 18 februari 2014 11:30
>> Aan: Jostein Austvik Jacobsen
>> CC: XProc Dev
>> Onderwerp: Re: PipX, a portable library of XProc pipelines and steps
>> On 18 February 2014 10:00, Jostein Austvik Jacobsen wrote:
>>   Hi Jostein,
>> > Would you prefer if the steps are moved to some PipX namespacing
>> > regime or are any namespace fine?
>>   Unless there was a specific technical reason, I'd rather keep all in
>> the PipX namespace (maybe split at some point among several namespace).
>> I think it makes things more clear.
>> > I think the main obstacle to using PipX in other projects are how
>> > easily it can be integrated into other build processes.
>>   Among other important points, yes.  Using the EXPath packaging might
>> help here.  If you have any specific ideas or problems with you own
>> build system, I'd be interested to hear them.  In the meantime I have
>> added a few open questions at, and would
>> be happy to expand it based on comments (or even resolve them :-p).
>>   Regards,
>> --
>> Florent Georges

Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:35:37 UTC