On 29 Jun 2004, at 23:53, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
In this kind of situation, there is a very heavy process set up to ensure that *all* source code is available, as long as *all* tools and operating systems required to build and run the software. Plus a huge amount of design and test documents to allow people to dive in years after the original development team has disappeared.
One might wonder whether this isn't something where consultants/integrators get their money from. If preservation and/or fall-back is what your customer expects, would that be something he's going to pay for? I'm talking about the preservation aspect here: if we provided sources, how long could the Cocoon community be expected to keep them? At what cost?
I tend to understand Ralph's point, but OTOH I think providing the build targets to create source jars should be sufficient, and that the actual assembly work should be at the third party's deliberation. For third-party, unreleased or patched libs, a coherent naming scheme and archive.apache.org offloading procedure should suffice.
</Steven> -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
