Hi Christian, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2013, at 18:12, Paul Benedict wrote: > >> I am glad to hear being "dormant" is not the same thing as being in >> the >> "attic" > > Why? Because "attic" means more or less that we not even intend to work on this component anymore. E.g. we decided that we will not put any further effort into oro, because it has been outdated by the JDK. >> I also prefer that being "dormant" doesn't cause a SVN/GitHub folder >> move. > > Why? It's pretty easy actually. > >> The projects should just live where they are, even when sleeping. Only >> move >> them if they actually go into an "attic" > > Unmaintained projects are a potential risk for our users. With having a > dormant > state we replicate the attic. I don't see a difference between a dormant > component and one in the attic - except that the term "attic" is more > established (as in foundation wide) > as the term "dormant". It simply means that no one is currently actively working on it, but it tells you nothing about its maturity or feature completeness. However, if we get a security report on one of this components, I am quite sure that we will react with a new release in time. And any (Apache) committer with interest can revive development quite immediately. It might be more difficult for users, but if one has interest and starts to bring reasonable patches, we were always quite lenient with committer status. I doubt, that we would see here any development for collections 4.x, if we had moved it into "attic". Especially because the term "attic" and its meaning is more established. > That said, I will not fight for removing the dormant-term. If you all > like it keep it. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
