Mario Ivankovits wrote on Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:15 PM: > Hi! >> Then why not split that further and have >> commons-vfs-bz2.jar etc... > Yes, this is something Vincent Massol also told me to do. > The reasons I wanted to go down to two jars are: > > *) each jar will have its own release cycle, means, we have > to vote for > each artifact, no? I think the number of mails in commons-dev > is already > high enough ;-) > > *) I have the feeling that maintaining it is way too much work for me > now, say, building all these releases, checking them and so on. > Once VFS again has a significant number of developers (or its own > release manager) such a structure might be manageable. > I know that it will be the nicer structure, but should a > commons project > have such a complicated structure, I guess no. > Maybe it might work better if VFS is a TLP (or at least out > of commons) > with its own mailing list and so on, though, not sure if/when > this will > happen. The lack of developers is definitely a NoNo for this.
Well, therefore I would not split it at all. If you feel that the core API is right, just release 1.0 with all stuff left outside, that might cause licensing trouble. You may release 1.1 later on easily with the stuff included as soon as you have answers. As marked out in the other thread, marking dependencies as optional is perfectly valid. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
