Le 2013-06-21 17:34, Ralph Goers a écrit :
I prefer the distinct separation between sandbox and proper (although
I've never understood why the word "proper" was chosen).
I agree for two different reasons.
The first one was already given by Sebb: users expect commons proper to
be mature and maintained.
The second one is that we have many components, so the separation in
three groups related to maturity
helps when someone looks at the global list for the first time or only
from time to time. With tens of
components, having to go to each one and identify whether it is
experimental or not is tedious. Our
current settings allows understanding the status at a glance.
Luc
As for moving components I would suggest starting a DISCUSS thread
and then, if appropriate, move to a vote thread.
Ralph
On Jun 21, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 21/06/2013 16:02, sebb a écrit :
Also, I don't think we should have code under proper that is not
likely to be supported going forward.
Users have the expectation that code under proper is mature and
supported.
It's doesn't prevent announcing a component as experimental with a
clear
distinction on the website. My proposal is simply to drop the
technical
distinction between proper and sandbox: same base directory in
Subversion, same ACLs. A component would simply "graduate" by
reaching
the version 1.0.
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
