Re: [jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-20 Thread Torsten Curdt
On 18.03.2007, at 06:51, Mario Ivankovits wrote: Hi! I had a quick look at the filesystem alteration monitor module - looks like could be useful component for people outside of JCI. I was thinking the same. But atm I would rather just get it releases. That probably means as part of JCI.

Re: [jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-17 Thread Niall Pemberton
we have. Oh ...and testcase coverage is good :) So question is whether it is OK to move JCI out of the sandbox - soon. Sounds good to me. A component being alive and getting close to being release ready is IMO good enough criteria. To the outside world I don't think theres much difference when

Re: [jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-17 Thread Torsten Curdt
Seems like a bad idea for a Commons component: * Potential confusion due to version numbers of modules moving independently etc.. * Its unlikely that releasing one module is significantly easier than releasing all. * Its likely that even though after a given quantum of time major changes are in

Re: [jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-17 Thread Torsten Curdt
2) Multi-project JCI uses the maven2 multi-project feature for modularity. Now this makes it the first multi-project release in commons and question is how we should handle versioning and voting procedure. In theory it would be good to be able to have individual releases of the modules.

Re: [jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-17 Thread Torsten Curdt
2) Multi-project JCI uses the maven2 multi-project feature for modularity. Now this makes it the first multi-project release in commons and question is how we should handle versioning and voting procedure. In theory it would be good to be able to have individual releases of the modules.

Re: [jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-17 Thread Niall Pemberton
On 3/17/07, Torsten Curdt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) Multi-project JCI uses the maven2 multi-project feature for modularity. Now this makes it the first multi-project release in commons and question is how we should handle versioning and voting procedure. In theory it would be good to be

Re: [jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-17 Thread Mario Ivankovits
Hi! I had a quick look at the filesystem alteration monitor module - looks like could be useful component for people outside of JCI. Yea, in the long term we discussed to replace the VFS's one with this implementation, though, if it is its own component with an abstract FS implementation it

[jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-16 Thread Torsten Curdt
coverage is good :) So question is whether it is OK to move JCI out of the sandbox - soon. 2) Multi-project JCI uses the maven2 multi-project feature for modularity. Now this makes it the first multi-project release in commons and question is how we should handle versioning and voting procedure

Re: [jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-16 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On 3/16/07, Torsten Curdt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to bring this well before an actual vote. At the moment I am still in the middle of documenting and fixing up JCI for a first 1.0 release. I hope to be able to provide a first RC1 at the end of next week ...latest the week after.

Re: [jci] out of the sandbox

2007-03-16 Thread Henri Yandell
we have. Oh ...and testcase coverage is good :) So question is whether it is OK to move JCI out of the sandbox - soon. Given the number of components we have in Commons that have 0..1 committers actively working on them, I think the '3 committers' rule has grown old and unnecessary. The worst