On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:08:09PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Thursday, October 24, 2002 7:35 PM -0700 Aaron Bannert > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think this is premature, we need a few more things first, like > > a mission to start.
I believe that we can start "testing the waters" as we refine the mission and rules. Specifically, I think it would be great to use Serf as a focal point for discussion. "where does its dev email go?" "where does the code go in CVS?" etc. We already have a lot of that in STATUS. This kind of focus really helps identify the things we need to do. Your [Aaron's] addition to STATUS is in a similar vein -- when we get down to "how do we deal with a component?" then these issues come right to the fore. I also expect the people with J-C experience to assist in fleshing out the discussion. > Nah, I don't think we need a mission for 'HTTP Utilities.' This >... > I dunno, but I really would prefer that we just take things and > evolve as we go. I'm getting awfully tired of dealing with >... > from falling apart' in such new endeavors. This proposal strikes me > as going in a different direction than where I would like to see it. Agreed on all that stuff. I left a few key points, but +1 to everything Justin said. > BTW, yes, component is an awfully misused word. I've been using that because it seems to be the best description of a reusable C library, Java class/package, Python module, etc. It is also a good noun to avoid the idea that Commons contains full-on "codebases". We are a collection of reusable components. Better terms are welcome :-) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
