Phil Steitz wrote:
The question we always ask
about new component ideas is can we grow and sustain a community
around them.
Couldn't agree more. As you may have noticed, there is a community and
it's been arguing for years!
>> >We came here originally. We found that there is a Commons way of
>doing things. Collaborating with those external people was not
>going to work within the confines of Apache Commons - nothing
>wrong with that, Commons isn't aiming to be a sole place of
>collaboration anywhere.
How exactly did you come to that conclusion? The only things I see
in the archives are*ASF* "ways of doing things" - using ASF SCM
repos - now Git is available, discussion on mailing lists, etc.
There was a stated use of this list [1].
Our goal/hope/aspiration is collaboration inside and outside Apache.
Asking people from other places to come over to this list is a
significant barrier.
I'm glad to see git is now available.
Great, but irrelevant to the question of whether there is community
interest in a Commons RDF component (I mean an Apache Commons
component named commons-rdf. In retrospect, we should have
anticipated the name disambiguation problem. At this point, users
may end up confused if we move forward in Commons and the community
does not end up combining.)
How does Commons normally handle potential name clash matters? or maybe
it has not occurred before?
Andy
[1]
http://markmail.org/message/jfl5nm6nyfj3zxgd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
