On 17 May 2011 00:07, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Paul Libbrecht <p...@hoplahup.net> wrote: > >> So we should relaunch a vote? >> (or... I should vote a no and relaunch?) >> >> paul >> >> >> Le 16 mai 2011 à 23:44, Phil Steitz a écrit : >> >> >>> d) svn remains open (but no commits without revival vote) >> >> It seems slightly too harsh to me. >> >> Since jelly is among the heaviest targeted ones here, I think the whole >> dormancy aspect would fit but preventing commits sounds like the best way to >> "cap off any attempt of revival". >> >> Couldn't we say >> >> >> > Good point. I would be OK with that change.
+1 to allowing SVN changes. >> > >> > Phil >> >>> d) svn remains open (but no release without revival vote) >> > > Dormant status feels like a death sentence of sorts or at least another > barrier to entry. > > If a committer wants to fiddle with POMs for example across all of commons, > he or she should be able to do so. Even a casual change like fixing typos > would not be allowed. > > I wonder if the opposite would not be more interesting: showing which > projects are Active. > > The whole dormant/active deliberation could be remedied with a page ranking > project activity by commit + ML activity + last release date for example. > > The audience can decide what is active based on this table: Project Name, > Commits Last Week/Month/Year | ML msg count week/month/year | Last Release > and Date Mature and stable components will tend to have low activity, but should not be marked dormant. It would be useful to know which projects have outstanding bugs that are not being addressed - that seems more likely to indicate dormancy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
