Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > In general, what I recommend projects to do is follow what SA did
Keep in mind that SA *had* to do it, because they had licensing problems with their earlier code. As a general thing, it would be best for the developer community if they could have all of their code in one place. That makes sense, but we still need to make sure that we have a "firewall" to prevent brand abuse. What would you think ... purely as talking points ... if the code for Wicket came over to our SVN, and ... - version 1.x code stays in the wicket.* package space, which does not bleed any ASF branding. It is already ASF licensed. - version 2.x code uses the org.apache.* package space. Builds for 1.x would be based on code from here, but distributed from the same place that they are currently distributed, with nothing to indicate at all that they have any connection to the ASF. Builds for 2.x follow Incubator release guidelines. Development lists can be treated as you discussed. User lists should probably stay on SF.net until the project graduates. Why would we want them here? The goal is to maintain the strict brand separation from the ASF, while recognizing that the project already had a well-established external existence. And I would agree that, as with Celtix and XFire, these projects agree to put their old versions essentially into maintenance mode until they are ready to release from the ASF. Again, these are just talking points. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]