On 2/7/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 09:44 -0500, Henri Yandell wrote: > > Specifically with respect to Latka, but applicable to all Commons > > components. > > > > How do we want to handle released (ie non-sandboxed) components that > > have gone dormant? Do we add a new component called Legacy (or > > something like that)? > > > > So: > > > > Released > > Legacy > > Unreleased > > Dormant > > > > Currently we have 6 months as the time to drop out of the unreleased > > (sandbox) section and into the dormant section. How long would we want > > to be looking at to start a vote to drop things from Released into > > Legacy? 1 year? 2 years? > > i'm not sure that legacy is really the right word here. legacy implies > that there it's not supported whereas the case may be that a component > is just finished. it should be expected that the quantity of coding on > the components we have here should gradually move towards zero: in the > end, bugs get fixed and code factored out into newer more specialist > components. > > a good example would be collections. this is a great library but active > development is now approaching zero. labelling collections as legacy > would mislead users into thinking that they should not use this library > whereas the message should be that this library is so well tested and > widely used that bugs are very few and so feature-filled that worthy > extensions are now rare.
+1. I'm aiming for the not supported with the legacy term. Inactivity is just a way to start a vote. So in this case, someone would nominate Collections for legacy, and someone else would say that they are actively monitoring it. Maybe they would commit to a file in it (the README or something). In a years time, it would come up again. > i'm also worried that we're failing to distinguish between different > states: libraries (if they are sufficiently popular) will evolve to a > stage whereby development slows since they are just about finished. IMHO > lumping these together with libraries which are not finished but which > no longer have an active development community will just confuse > developers and users. +1. Quite likely that Latka should actually be demoted to the Sandbox and then put into Dormant, rather than becoming Legacy. BeanUtils on the other hand could goto Legacy (assuming no one is maintaining it). Also +1 to a better word than Legacy. How do we define maintain too. DbUtils needs a release; if a user asks for a release and we're unable to release, that definitely strikes me as legacy. A component on which our committer community is not currently responding. Then again, ECS, Regexp, ORO all are examples of Jakarta components that have a single committer watching them. Ideally the released-dormant concept we come up with would be applicable there. I bet all three get user questions generally answered, and could have releases if need be, but they also seem to be in the released-dormant zone. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
