+1 on Leo. On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:15:19 -0400 (EDT), Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I see no reason not to have Leo as a committer and have him guide > commons-attributes to a release. So: > > [ ] +1 Yep > [ ] -1 Nope > > Hen > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:58:14 +0200 > From: Leo Sutic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Sandbox/Attributes] Promotion and Release (some help needed) > > All, > > I have received emails to the effect that releasing Attributes as-is > would be a good idea. People need an official release to distribute > and to use in their own releases. > > The documentation isn't perfect - I'm lacking a Maven demo to > complement the Ant demo, but I don't think that the docs are bad > enough to warrant holding up the release. > > Since Attributes is in the sandbox right now, it has to be promoted. > And this is a problem. See, I'm not a commons committer. So promoting > the project would mean that its chief developer (me) suddenly can't > commit code to it. This is not an acceptable state. > > So, the way I see it - these are the ways forward: > > 1. Attributes stay in sandbox, unreleased. > 2. Attributes stay in sandbox, but we release it. > 3. Attributes move to commons proper, we release it, and I get > committer status. > > Of these, (3) is the most preferred one, followed by (2) and (1). > > Commons Committers, what do you say? > > /LS > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]