On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >> Hi Rahul, >> thanks once again for the wise suggestions, much more than appreciated! >> >> I underestimated the importance of the users over the active >> developers, so I totally agree with you, moving to dormant is >> premature. >> >> I was aware about breaking APIs compatibility, since we had to face >> the same problem also in [pool2], I thought it would have been a good >> idea implementing the sandbox in the o.a.c.digester3[1] package, looks >> like it is compliant to the suggestions you proposed. >> >> I like your idea of branching 1.X, 2.X and put 3 on trunk, shall we >> call a vote before going on? > +1 > I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days > to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it. > <snip/>
Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
