Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > This will get finalized at the PMC meeting I'm
> > sure, but as far as I see it, we had an agreement
> > within the group that the future would be Catalina
> > and the compromise hasn't been made yet and I'm
> > calling attention to the fact that people are
> > ignoring what we decided upon earlier.
>
> Can somebody point me to the mail archives where this decision was made?
> What I can find is
>
>
>http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/~checkout~/jakarta-tomcat/proposals/tomcat-4.0/source-proposal.html
>
> Which states:
>
> The existing jakarta-tomcat module is proposed to continue as it
> currently exists (except for being renamed), for use in supporting the
> Tomcat 3.x code for as long as this is appropriate.
>
> As near as I can tell, people are disagreeing now on either what the
> definition of support is, or what is and what is not appropriate. My guess
> is that there was not a meeting of the minds on these two issues.
>
The message chain that started the voting on accepting Catalina as the code base for
4.0 had a subject line
"[PROPOSALS] Three Proposals for Development of Tomcat 4.0", and was sent to
TOMCAT-DEV on August 8, 2000. You can
find the head of this thread at:
<http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195>
The proposal references the CVSweb link you have identified above as justification for
creating a new CVS repository
(rather than continuing to use a "proposals" directory underneath the existing
"jakarta-tomcat" repository. The
rationale for the "Catalina as Tomcat 4.0 servlet container" proposal is available at:
<http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/~checkout~/jakarta-tomcat/proposals/tomcat-4.0/catalina-proposal.html>
and a third proposal related to Jasper development is at:
<http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/~checkout~/jakarta-tomcat/proposals/tomcat-4.0/jasper-proposal.html>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Craig
