Right, good point, +1 on "commons/sandbox/dormant" and "commons/proper/dormant".
And, components moved to dormant are removed from the svn:externals property of their respective trunks directory. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:09 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Removing Graduated Components from trunks-sandbox > > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:41:36 -0500, Tim O'Brien > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm for "commons/sandbox/dormant" - some dormant projects have been > > revived and have proven useful, but I also think that it is wise to > > differentiate between projects actively in the sandbox and projects > > suffering from persistent lack of interest. Maybe now that > it is so > > much easier to just move stuff around we could formalize this with > > something like: sandbox projects lacking sufficient interest may be > > moved to a dormant directory "commons/sandbox/dormant" (not linked > > from trunks-sandbox). Projects in > "commons/sandbox/dormant" showing a > > persistence lack of interest will be "svn rm" after n months. > > > > IMHO "dormant" makes sense, but not necessarily under > "sandbox" -- it seems equally possible that a Commons Proper > package could go dormant. > We should consider either a "proper/dormant" and a "sandbox/dormant" > structure, or a "dormant" on the same level as "proper" and "sandbox". > > +1 on using "svn move" to put things there, from now on. > > > Tim > > Craig > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
