On 2/27/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henri Yandell wrote:
> There isn't an absolute promise of that, I guess. However, I think it's > safe to say that many people opt for ASF projects because they think > that the likelihood of them remaining active and supported is much > higher than with a random project they find on sourceforge. That, and that the source will remain open, none of the bit where an individual developer decides to turn the project they're dependent on into a profit making personal business. Or gets 'acquired' by another business. You're right in that inactivity is also a huge problem; or rather making sure we reflect inactivity on the website is a huge problem. Jakarta's size and depth hides these issues, so currently my aim is to flatten Jakarta so it's easier to see such things - ie) velocity would be split into three separate subprojects of Jakarta, or it can goto TLP: velocity.apache.org. Then we move inactive components into an obvious inactive state - this kind of thing is starting to happen in Commons already. Published as inactive (well dormant is the current label). One thing inactive components might do is point to another license and community friendly alternative that we recommend. ie) The Jakarta BCEL mailing list agreed that for new development we recommend ObjectWeb ASM. Another thing that needs to be displayed on the site. None of the above means we should treat a release any less though; interested in hearing from the velocity guys when a DVSL 0.46 jar will be released to iBiblio properly. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
