David, Yes, the Univ of Jena group has not done a good job in communicating their design decisions to the mailing list. But we should also admit that we have dropped the ball in our code review and helping them do the commits. I am particularly disappointed in the people who complained loudly about the process when we initially discussed it, but seemed to have disappeared thereafter.
I too would like to see Pluto 2.0 move forward, but do not have a lot of time to devote to it now. Perhaps we will get more activity when our container users see a stable JSR-286 spec and decide that it is time for them to move toward supporting it. /Craig "David H. DeWolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/2007 09:12 AM Please respond to [email protected] To [email protected] cc Subject Re: When will the pluto 2.0 branch start? Stefan, I'd like to see it sooner rather than later, but unfortunately there just hasn't been much activity around it. I personally don't have the time right now to review all of the progress and make sure that the community has the proper oversight. I have been looking at things as they come in and and things look like they are moving in a solid direction. I would have no problem if (and would actually encourage) another committer wanted to help drive the process towards 2.0. I know I sound like a broken record, but I really think that discussions on this list about the design choices and progress being made would really help to peak interest and provide some avenues for oversight. There was a bit of it about jaxb which I thought was very healthy and resulted in several people chiming in, however, not other aspect of the implementation has been addressed. What do others think? David Stefan Hepper wrote: > Guys, > the University of Jena will soon have finished implementing the current > draft of JSR 286. > Until now there was no feedback on the design or implemention. > Are you just waiting until everything is complete and than dump it into > a 2.0 branch or what is the current plan? > > Stefan > >
