Martin, If we physically move them out of the struts1 folder (archive is sibling to struts1), then they can no longer be part of the build process if desired. I wasn't expecting to cut the life-cord that far! :-) but you desire differently?
Paul On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As has already been pointed out, we already have a location for dormant > projects. It's called "archive". I am opposed (-1, if you must) on having > two locations for inactive sub-projects. > > -- > Martin Cooper > > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > If other committers haven't chimed in (or want to chime in again :-) ) > > please do. I think I will be making these changes eventually: > > > > * Move "el" project to "dormant" subfolder > > * Move "faces" project to "dormant" subfolder > > * Add a profile that builds them specifically > > * Up to the future whether the profile is included in the release build. > > > > Paul > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > I started this poll because it is, to Wendy's point, double work to > > > maintain the tag libraries. For every change, I have to update two > source > > > files -- either two Java or two TLD. Because people have noticed in the > > past > > > when the two libraries are not in sync, I was looking for a way to > "move > > > forward" but not kill anyone in the water. Just looking for a good > > > answer.... > > > > > > Would a better compromise be to move them into a dormant subproject > (like > > > apps)? I'd also like to do this with the "faces" module too, since > Craig > > was > > > the only committer and dropped support years ago. I am more than > willing > > to > > > continue releasing them as such, but do want to relegate them to > > > second-class projects. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Niall Pemberton > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I guess I'm just wondering what harm does it do leaving it in the > > >> > release and the benefit is that it allows people with legacy apps > > >> > dependant on it to upgrade with no pain. > > >> > > >> It seems to require double work to maintain both taglibs. As long as > > >> someone is willing to do that work, it can stay... > > >> > > >> Honestly, how many apps do you think will upgrade to 1.4? I bet most > > >> of them are still back on 1.1/1.2, and aren't going anywhere. :) > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Wendy > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
