Martin, would you find it acceptable to leave them where they are and just relegate them to an optional build profile? That probably makes most sense; if we still want them buildable (I think we do), then they really aren't "inactive".
Paul On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > 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? > > > As far as I'm concerned, it can stay where it is or it can move to archive. > I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. What I object to is > multiple flavours of "inactive" within a single project. > > -- > Martin Cooper > > > > 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] > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
