> IMHO the concept of a commons is DOA unless external
> interfaces are viewed as contracts.
Right. For *released* versions of components. Stuff that's in development is, well, in development.
> For that reason, I would suggest that jakarta-commons
> is the place for the STABLE version.
I don't see any reason for one to assume that the latest CVS version of *anything* is going to be stable. If things aren't changing, why do we need to version code? If you want stable, use the binaries, or pick an instant in time and tag it.
> Those that wish to make speculative changes
> are free to fork, and may even consider using
> the sandbox to do so.
Distinguish "speculative changes" from regular development?
Why are we holding an *unreleased* commons component to a higher standard of stability than anything else? Once a release is made, API contracts start to matter. Before that, commit-then-review seems like the precedent.
It seems strange to me that Dirk and I were the main participants in the specific interaction that spawned this thread, and yet we're the least worked up about it.
