Oliver, Everyone seemed to agree this was a good idea except for you. For the record I simply stated that "I think we should consider the matter closed." I did not say "The matter is closed." So that was an opinion/suggestion, not an ultimatum.
We could take a vote if you insist. In the past, we have tried to avoid voting unless it was for a release issue or something major. Suggestion: Instead of complaining to me about wanting to reach a conclusion, perhaps you could respond intelligently to the reasoning cited by people in this thread. sean On 6/29/05, Oliver Rossmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sean, > > just a formal question: by which way did you get the power to end this > discussion and to decide what has to happen? And in case there are > divergent opinions on any topic in the future will it always be you who > has the power to decide? > > You propose to follow the "formal and informal practices of the other > projects" so please take yourself literally and do it the ASF way: start > a formal vote on the topic. > > Oliver > > Sean Schofield wrote: > > >As for removing the jars from SVN, I think we should consider this > >matter closed. Its a good idea for several reasons which Craig, > >Martin and others have articulated quite clearly. Not only will this > >save bandwith (and therefore money) for the ASF, but it brings us into > >compliance with the standard by which other ASF projects do things. > > > >When possible, the various ASF projects should try to do things in a > >similar fashion. Regardless of how one might decide to do things in > >their corporate environment, ASF has its own way of doing things. > >MyFaces should comply with the formal and informal practices of the > >other projects whenever there is not a compelling reason to deviate > >from those norms. > > > >There is still the matter of including jars in the binary distro, etc. > >where I can see advantages and disadvantages to the two approaches. > >But as far as jars in SVN are concerned, it seems quite clear that > >this practice should end. > > > >sean > > > >On 6/27/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>And we're working on just such a list of the dependencies. That is > >>one benefit of moving the jars out of SVN. I took the approach that > >>the Struts build uses. The build script clearly lists the depencies > >>and the version numbers required. > >> > >>Of course we could have that without removing the jars from SVN too. > >>But its 100% essential if we don't supply the jars and so now we have > >>it. Both sides should be happy on this point :-) > >> > >>sean > >> > >>On 6/27/05, ir. ing. Jan Dockx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On 25 Jun 2005, at 20:43, Craig McClanahan wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>For the record, I am absolutely and totally -1 on including JAR files > >>>>in the source code repository of any Apache project that I work on. > >>>>Including them in a binary distribution, of course, is a totally > >>>>different animal. > >>>> > >>>>Craig > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Even then. (see previous post). In my opinion (for as much as that of a > >>>user counts), only end-user products should contain all dependencies. > >>>Libraries should never, but instead list the dependencies with all > >>>needed information, including what each dependency is needed for. > >>> > >>> > >>>Met vriendelijke groeten, > >>> > >>>Jan Dockx > >>> > >>>PeopleWare NV - Head Office > >>>Cdt.Weynsstraat 85 > >>>B-2660 Hoboken > >>>Tel: +32 3 448.33.38 > >>>Fax: +32 3 448.32.66 > >>> > >>>PeopleWare NV - Branch Office Geel > >>>Kleinhoefstraat 5 > >>>B-2440 Geel > >>>Tel: +32 14 57.00.90 > >>>Fax: +32 14 58.13.25 > >>> > >>>http://www.peopleware.be/ > >>>http://www.mobileware.be/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > -- > Oliver Rossmueller > Software Engineer and IT-Consultant > Hamburg, Germany > http://www.rossmueller.com > >
