> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 October 2002 11:29
> Hi, > > What granularity do you think that should be allowable as commons codebases? > Should we define the granularity as focus, as number of files, as committers > or what? It's very subjective IMO. It think it is maturity/potential of the project. The community being alive. > For example. Where I am from we have a small library for dealing with Java > Extensions (think .dlls or .sos with additional metadata). When the component > started it had 2-3 source files with a single purpose. Was it mature? Did it have a community? If either of these questions is no, it should probably go to Incubator first. > Over time it grew to be about 15-20 source files + ~40 unit tests. Somewhere in that period it could (and should) have been graduated from Incubator to Commons. > I guess my question is, Would it have been accepted when it was tiny (2-3 > source files), small or does it still not qualify. It matches other criteria > (and was actually the merge of multiple projects code) but I am curious what > you consider of the scope. > > It probably does not warrant it's own mailing list or it's own dedicated > space. However it is a reusable focused component. It's a reusable component? It's usefull? Then it does warrant both a ML and some webspace explaining what it does. Without those, a community is bound to fall apart or will go by unnoticed (so that it never grows). > What do you think of this sort of situation (translated as appropriate for > your own technology)? In or out? Personally: In. Sander
