On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message ---- From: Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Using CLI as an example, I'm not sure that there is a shared sense of > responsibility for it. > > CLI 1.x has had an issue open against it since 2006-03 with only > recent activity on it, and Henri's comment in that issue from 2007-03 > ("CLI is still pretty much a dead commons component. No one's actively > working on it.") is damning evidence.IMO Henri was being a little harsh here, as I don't think we always distinguish between the stability of code and the activity of the community.
At the time it was pretty valid I think - there was zero energy available to spend on it. CLI was a good lesson in the dangers of letting a research revolution take over the momentum of a component. Something for us to learn with some of our newer revolution rather than evolution branches.
I do feel, and this is the important point, that if a commons committer chose to work on CLI, and want to release it then they would get support for doing the release (we're not perfect, but we're pretty good at making up the quorum and doing the quality checking).
In fact they are :) A contributor, Brian Egge, is charging on with the 1.x branch and I've been working with him on that, we've one issue to go. Torsten's also interested in seeing a release get out, so I'd be surprised if we had any problems on a release. I do apologise though to you, Sebb. My 'solutions' are very much a reflection of me being tired with all this and wanting to make things happen sooner rather than in much, much later. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
