On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Kevin Ross wrote: <snipped/> > > So I think you've missed my point in the end, giving up on the details > of making it happen. Just because I have an opinion on *how* it should > happen, doesn't mean that everyone agrees. > > I'm FOR a standalone version. I'm FOR an embedded version. I'm FOR a > .war deployable version. > > I think that we can all agree to that. Why not include the jar in cvs > main trunk? What if 18 other mutations stroll along, which are all > viable? Include them all in cvs? or find a better way to make them all > happen? Wouldn't it then be confusing, looking at cvs to see what > xindice core really depends on?
You're playing somehow unfair with this issue! The discussion was about Jetty and not the other 17 hypothetical mutations. There *will* be changes over the life of a project anyway and each of them has to be discussed on its own. You can't stop having additional tools added eventually by saying "no, now it's enough". I would suggest to do a formal vote about including Jetty amongst the xindice committers. > CVS is for developers, not users, I agree. We also need the people who > start off as 'users' to become contributing 'developers'. But if the > cvs includes everything under the sun, it can become a daunting, > overwhelming task to new members wanting to contribute. "everything under the sun" is not a valuable argument to a specific need some developpers have. Giacomo
