I agree. The only reason [imaging] has been "dormant" for so long is that I am busy making large changes that have taken many months to write, so it's not really that dormant after all.
I understand the desire to do something about the current state of Commons, but please don't make things harder for those of us that are doing something productive. With the 3 year rule, I would be forced to do a 0.98 release which breaks the API, and another release after that which breaks the API again in an even worse way. IIRC, I've already tried to do a release 4 times - unsuccessfully. Damjan On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't like the idea of putting inactive components in the attic -- unless > there is some unreasonable length of time that goes by without any > development (3 years?). People who want to get things out of the attic are > usually a sole passionate fellow. Can a sole fellow unilaterally get a > component out of the attic? I wouldn't think so ... but if I am wrong, I > would drop my objection. > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Le 15/10/2013 14:35, Gary Gregory a écrit : >> >> > the web site can say "last released on yyyy-mm-dd, no new >> > releases planned". >> >> I like this idea, but unless you automate the site update it adds an >> extra manual step to the release process. >> >> Emmanuel Bourg >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
