On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Adam R. B. Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, most of my statement (and now question) is about
> friend-of-gump behaviour, and having that project is good, but not
> "friendly" 'cos it forces work onto sub-projects.
I'm not sure.
> Do you not agree that the project sh
Stefan wrote:
>
> Please note that there already is a commons-httpclient-2.0-branch
> project in Gump's workspace. It would be trivial for projects to
> depend on that branch instead of CVS HEAD and in fact jakarta-slide
> and xml-rpc already do so.
>
Thanks, I'd not seen that.
However, most of
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Adam R. B. Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oleg wrote:
>
>> Adam, with all due respect let me point out that we have stable
>> HTTPCLIENT_2_0_BRANCH branch that should be used by those who need
>> API and/or code stability. If GUMP cannot be configured to use any
>> other CVS
Oleg wrote:
> We will be more than happy to play by the rules, as long as they are
clearly articulated and agreed upon, not just imposed upon us.
I completely agree, and like I said -- these aren't even "mandatory rules"
more "here is how to play nicely w/ other Gumpers". I also agree it is upon
Oleg wrote:
> Adam, with all due respect let me point out that we have stable
> HTTPCLIENT_2_0_BRANCH branch that should be used by those who need API
> and/or code stability. If GUMP cannot be configured to use any other CVS
branch but
> HEAD, this is a totally different kind of a problem, and it
