| > As a complement to this: how is the "deprecating" system of | > Jakarta? If a project "dies", that nobody seems to update it, | > the list dies or something like this, does it die away from | > Jakarta too? | | What would you like to see happen? Should we wipe the site with | something that has no activity? Should Jserv die because the last | release was forever ago? I think not. Jserv is a production server | that lives in many production sites. Try finding a java web hoster | that uses something other than Jserv. | | What is your patch to the problem?
This is just some quick ideas. No patches, again... This is for the "customer" view of your cool open source products. The developers hopefully know what they're developing already..! *) A couple of different web pages. One called "releases", another called "in development" and a thrid called "deprecated" or something similar. *) All pages whould be further divided into groups, maybe even some kind of tree, based on functionality. It's already started by the grouping in that table done on the frontpage, which is good. This grouping could be identical on each page. *) "Releases" are the stuff that are released and maybe "in production quality". By the minor numbers you'd see if a project had had some time to mature. Maybe a download counter, so that you'd see how many which is potentially using it. A release date with the download, so that you'd understand how "fresh" the release was. A release is decided by the project team. *) "Under development" are things that are in development, in beta cycling or release candidate or similar stages. *) "Deprecated" are things that have lost most of their community, or which have been truly deprecated by other products which are "superior". In this way people wouldn't start fumbling around with old technology, but concentrate on the stuff that Jakarta felt was up to speed with the current state of the art. It could potentially be a bit difficult to decide what would end up in this section. But I think that the developers of the projects (if there was any left) would decide this themselves. Several things would maybe have to appear both in "releases" and "under development". JServ IS deprecated, isn't it? ECS could be deprecated. Tomcat 3.1 too. Maybe some other products as well. I feel that Apache and Jakarta has a real advantage over those other systems in that there is a "board" that oversees the whole thing, accepts new stuff into the system, and maybe also suggests that things should be deprecated. This will ensure that projects hosted at Jakarta would be of another level of quality than other development systems. Accepting new projects isn't impossible, it is desireable, I think. It kind of seems like things can be both invented, or born, at Jakarta, and that they can come from other sources. Shouldn't there be at least some common "quality" control on these types of projects? *) Furter; if things started to get a bit too big, one could further divide the projects, and create new boards. The "Libray, Tools and APIs" could have one board, the "Frameworks and Engines" could have another and so on. A subdivision at each level that got too big. *) There could even be a section (page) called "Under Consideration", but that could maybe be left up to sourceforge? Endre. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
