Greg, > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:29 PM > To: Private PMC mailing list for Avalon; Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:51:37AM +0200, Stephen McConnell wrote: > > > > OK - given the qualification of intent based on the posts to this thread > > it seems to me that the PMC is being presented with a choice: > > > > 1. Move Fortress/ECM to Codehaus > > 2. Keep it here at Apache
<snip/> > Also note that moving the code to Codehaus means that it cannot use the > org.apache namespace. Forking the code is fine, but non-ASF code cannot > use our namespace (or more precisely, it *can* since we certainly can't > control it, but we'd be extremely and vocally peeved about it :-). I figured the namespace thing would eventually be a valid concern in which case users would have to make code changes to swap the package names. This would be the only divergence from the original proposal by Leo Simons. Users would be affected but nominally when switching codebases. This does make "Move" in opt #1 clearly mean "Fork" especially when according to Aaron's emails, "regardless of the outcome of this proposal Avalon will still make available previous releases in source and binary form." And so: To fork or not to fork that is the question! But in doing so respect the interests of the ASF. Whether tis nobler in Avalon to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous codebases or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them. To fork: to move; No more; and by a fork to say we end the heart-ache, and the thousand natural email trails nagoya is heir to. 'Tis a community devoutly to be wish'd .... Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
