On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> wrote: > imo they can join the effort in any case. i won't use project borders as an > argument (since we are still within the asf).
+1 - commons knew about this incubating effort and could have joined in. I would say the only reason to go to commons would be if there were not enough active people for a TLP to function. If there are then a TLP would be better IMO. Niall > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2011/6/4 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >> actually if there are people over at commons interested in helping out, >> then this might be a very valuable option. >> >> However, we need to make sure that there are not too many dependencies >> pulled in into bval. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> --- On Sat, 6/4/11, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > From: Kevan Miller <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: Where to, Bean Validation? >> > To: [email protected] >> > Date: Saturday, June 4, 2011, 6:45 AM >> > >> > On May 27, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all guys, >> > > sorry for joining so late the discussion but I got too >> > much distracted >> > > by apache-commons :P >> > > Indeed, I think that Commons would be the perfect >> > place to host BVAL, >> > > IMHO perfectly fits as commons-validator2. >> > > Anyway I don't have any objection on proposing it as >> > TLP if the >> > > majority thinks that that's BVAL future. >> > >> > I'm pretty much in agreement with Simone. It seems the >> > majority would favor TLP, however -- which is fine, too. >> > >> > So... if the community wants to graduate, the community >> > will need to make it happen... Incubation is not a process >> > that lasts forever. We should be moving towards graduation >> > -- http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html >> > >> > --kevan >> >
