On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 12:07, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > > community rules :) > > > > if people are more comfortable with sourceforge (and two are so far, by > > my count) then that's cool with me. > > > > do any (potential) volunteers feel that the sandbox would be better > > than the sourceforge? > > Will answer the rest of the email after more deliberation, but I'm +1 to > the sandbox as I find sourceforge to be a huge pain to do releases at, and > this was before they stopped shell access to the CVS repo.
My thoughts were not so much about the development process, but about where the application will live when released. Commons is a collections of libraries; there aren't any "commons applications", and I think one would feel very out-of-place (and possibly be against the charter). Maybe it could find a home within the Ant project, as one of its interfaces will be an Ant task? But that might make it harder to find for people looking for a stand-alone tool... I'm also concerned by the number of commit messages likely to flood the commons list. As a new project, there is likely to be a lot more cvs commit operations than for a "mature" project. None of it is likely to be of interest to anyone except the 2 or 3 people actually working on the project. As long as people aren't concerned about the CVS commit emails issue, I guess we could *start* in the sandbox, and deal with these issues nearer to release time if people wish. That would certainly be the path of least resistance.. I haven't worked on SourceForge before, so don't know how much pain a release involves there. Cheers, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
