I'd prefer that it be part of the distribution. Having it separate
just seems to add complexity to the build and I'm sure to the release
process.
Just my 2 cents.
--
James Mitchell
On Mar 12, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
Under the Apache License, anyone who wanted to do that would be free
to do so. It's just a matter of changing the product name, and
following the other provisions of the license.
But, that doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the venue. If
there's anyone who is ready, willing, and able to run Annotations as a
GoogleCode project, AFAIC, they would also be welcome to help maintain
Annotations as a Struts subproject. It's not about venue, it's about
volunteers.
The problem is that no one is doing the work of making Annotations
reusable. It is not documented as a separate entity, no one is
releasing it, or announcing it, or otherwise promoting it. Some of our
own committers don't even know it exists.
If someone wants to be the Struts Annotations release manager, now is
the time to step up. Otherwise, we should declare it an orphan and
make the JAR part of the general distribution.
-Ted.
On 3/12/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After the changes I just added, I don't think annotations will
change much
from now on, if any. We could set it up somewhere else
(googlecode?) and
avoid both the subproject and the multiple release problems.
musachy
On 3/12/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/11/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Annotations was originally setup as a separate JAR with an
independent
> > version so as to encourage reuse. However, until other product
> > indicate an interest in using Annotaitons and participating in
its
> > development, managing a separate release process provides no
tangible
> > benefit.
>
>
> It provides the tangible benefit of actually allowing for reuse...
>
> Therefore, it's proposed that annotations become a part of
> > the general Struts 2 distribution, along with the various
plugins, but
> > remain in its own JAR, so as to encourage reuse. If an
independent
> > community forms around Annotations, we can revisit the issue
of making
> > it a subproject with its own release cycle.
>
>
> An independent community is simply not going to form around
something
> that's
> buried inside of Struts. We've already seen that in the past. I
know this
> is
> a bit of a Catch 22 situation, but unless we actually allow for
reuse in
> the
> first place, as we do today, there is very little chance that it
will ever
> be reused. Therefore I would prefer to see the annotations stay
separate.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> Archetype was original setup as a separate entity, but it might be
> > simpler to reduce the number of independent artifacts being
released
> > by the project. The S2 Release Manager will have to update the
version
> > number in the templates, but that seems like less work that
> > coordinating tandem releases, that might end up being handled
by the
> > same volunteer anyway.
> >
> > Again, this is as to the trunk. For now, we can let the 2.0
branch
> > stay as it is.
> >
> > Further thoughts?
> >
> > -Ted.
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
