Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 6/23/07, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/23/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip/>
>
> I haven't yet understood why we need to release anything from the
> sandbox at all. Sure, reproducibility is a good thing, but I doubt the
> builds are radically irreproducible without this release; and more
> importantly, I believe if people are interested in the sandbox
> components and their reproducibility, they should help get a release
> out instead.
>
I think you have a good point there, Rahul, but I would see this as a
commons release, not a commons-sandbox release and I personally see
the benefit (consistent builds, easier to get a sandbox component to
build when jumping in) as outweighing the negatives (increasing
likelihood people depend on sandbox components, making the sandbox
more "comfortable"), especially given that we are *not* releasing any
sandbox jars.
<snip/>
I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate. I am not impressed by
any of these benefits (I'm not trying to be curt, I don't know how
else to put it). Moreover, I agree about the negatives.
So what are the negatives here? I have not seen anyone put forward any
arguments yet as to why releasing the sandbox parent pom would be bad.
We are *not* talking about releasing sandbox components! Please,
enlighten me.
I see this as being distilled, and worse -- recurring, busy work.
Well, Carlos asked for a release of the pom. I imagine that he has a
good reason for this. So I stepped up to do the release. If I don't mind
doing the job - why should you care?
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
