+1 from me. On 10/26/07, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Makes sense to me. +1 for gshell as a subproject. > > Best wishes, > Paul > > > On Oct 26, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > > On Oct 26, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote: > > > >> I don't see why we shouldn't. But can someone more informed please > >> list the pros and cons. > > > > Here's my list: > > > > Pro's > > > > * Easier for other projects to reuse GShell > > * Release cycle not tied to Geronimo server release cycle > > > > Con's > > > > * Small overhead for being a separately released project -- > > documentation, release voting, etc > > * Separate source tree can complicate debugging (can make the > > counterpoint that debugging GShell is easier...) > > > > The Geronimo tx-manager components (transaction and connector) is > > another example where we've done this. Note that prior to (or > > concurrent with) voting on our last two releases, we've been voting > > on a tx-manager release. Although it need not be that way, we're > > falling into a lock-step release cycle... > > > > I assume that Guillaume is interested in using GShell outside of > > Geronimo. I assume that there will be others... > > > > I'd support GShell as a subproject... > > > > --kevan > > > >
-- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
