On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:29:18PM +1100, Peter Donald wrote:
...
> > To drive this point home, the subject line of this thread identifies
> > exactly one such set of duplication - between Turbine and Struts. My
> > nagging lead Berin to propose moving the Avalon collections code into
> > commons
Paul Hammont wrote:
>
> There is some romance to extending the 'honor system' to the whole of
> Jakarta. When we became committers we all treaded tentatively until
> we'd fully earned the respect of the seasoned veterans in the project in
> question. An 'open' Jakarta would be nice, but even wit
Sam,
>I have quietly stated several times that I would prefer that a Jakarta
>committer is a Jakarta committer. Gaging by the response I got each time,
>I figured that then was not the time to push the issue.
>
There is some romance to extending the 'honor system' to the whole of
Jakarta. Whe
Ted Husted wrote:
>
> As it stands, both are simply subprojects, and so a Commons committer is
> a Commons committer. Ditto for Taglibs.
It is also fair to point out that an Avalon committer is a committer to the
framework itself as well as to testlet, logkit, phoenix, cornerstone,
excalibur, and
Jeff Turner wrote:
> Has that turned out to be a problem in practice? Say if you think so,
> and we can propose a modification to the charter: "The votes of those
> who haven't committed to a project are non-binding".
That would be a matter to be discussed on the Commons (and/or Tablibs)
lists.,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:29:18PM +1100, Peter Donald wrote:
...
> > To drive this point home, the subject line of this thread identifies
> > exactly one such set of duplication - between Turbine and Struts. My
> > nagging lead Berin to propose moving the Avalon collections code into
> > commons
