+1 on the TLP vote In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?iso-88 59-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schaible?= writes: >I never got why things like ECS, ORO, regexp are not part of commons. = >What makes them different to logging or digester? I can understand the = >separation for something like POI, but not necessarily for components I = >would describe as utitlity libs. Maybe I'm lacking simply historical = >reasons though ...
For at least ORO, there has been no opposition to moving it into Commons that I can recall. It hasn't happened because folks have taken the initiative only to propose it, not to actually do it. There's also been the issue that being forced to rename the the packages to org.apache.commons.oro, org.apache.commons.regexp, etc. breaks lots of existing code. However, "done" projects like ORO and regexp are being viewed as unwanted baggage by some folks despite the value they've provided for many years, so I don't know if they'll be allowed to follow commons. They don't belong in Dormant because they have actual releases, but they don't belong in Proper because they are primarily consumed, not developed (albeit they are maintained). The options advocated at Jakarta are always dead or alive for some reason and don't allow for finished. If the Commons community does not oppose allowing for projects to become finished/complete, then some of these can and probably should follow (e.g., the 1.4 branch of Commons Net relies on ORO). But I would suggest any further discussion of this be postponed until after the move of Commons to a TLP. If each issue is handled separately, some progress may actually be made. daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
