IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can
see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In fact I
didn't even know that this is a "turbine sub-sub project" for quite some
time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's _not_ fold
it into the commons list where a completely different culture exists
compared to a "normal" project list. I'm pretty sure that this will
scare JCS users away.
I'm thinking that "making it a direct Jakarta sub project" starts to
make more and more sense. I'd propose that we move JCS in this
direction, if the JCS developers push for a 1.0 release inside
turbine-jcs and we make the transition into a Jakarta project with this
1.0 release (which would IMHO a fine reason to do so).
Regards
Henning
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 17:16, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:
> >
> >> Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm
> >> for the
> >> Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than
> >> sandbox
> >> route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full sub-project.
> >
> > +1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied by a
> > release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care).
>
> the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by folding the
> jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first. this would
> allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight.
>
> next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for the
> core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready, we'd
> update the commons website and officially add JCS to the commons.
> hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a community
> and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces. once
> the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of the
> commons.
>
> > Else it would not be fair to
> > many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been kept
> > there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).
>
> (just to set the record straight on commons-configuration) sandbox
> components are not allowed to have releases. one major factor when
> promotion (to the commons proper) is being consider is that a component
> is ready for a release (even if it's a 0.1 one). i now think that every
> component in commons proper needs a proper release of some kind so that
> other projects have the chance to depend on a released version.
>
> i'm not sure why eric hasn't started to push towards promotion for
> commons-configuration but it's possible that there's addition work that
> needs doing before commons-configuration is ready.
>
> - robert
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
"Außerdem können in Deutschland alle Englisch. [...] so entfällt die
Notwendigkeit [...] Deutsch zu lernen."
-- Johan Micoud auf die Frage warum er kein Deutsch spricht.
(http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,273205,00.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
