On Friday 07 November 2003 08:28, Stephen McConnell wrote: > My own opinion is that we need a new CVS repository - avalon-playground. > > What's the difference between avalon-playground and avalon-sandbox - > simple - things in playground are not destined for Avalon - its simply > an infrastructure to support and enable people who want to do new > things. What is the exit criteria for playground content? Its the > development of the individuals who come to play. > > I.e. Avalonia - the center for component developer development.
IIUYC, avalon-playground would be more open to developers who are not full Avalon comitters, and only access to that repo? And that the entry-level for participation here would be much lower? I doubt that will go through the ASF upper ranks. If there are legalities of copying an LGPL library to ASF infrastructue, I believe the above to be hard to get through. If you manage, I think Leo and I would agree it would be good, but in absence of such break-through, do you still maintain that Avalon components can ONLY be hosted at avalon.apache.org? IMHO, the recent "success" (or at least hype) around Pico is directly related to "component availability" (more or less anything can be refactored in minutes). You may envision dozens of high-quality components. I envision thousands of various quality (comformant or not to the "single contract") components, where the high-quality ones are at Apache infrastructure, and the others are "easy to find" somewhere else. Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
