> -0 (if that's allowed) > > But -1 if the proposal is to stop non-Python Gumps at present.
I don't think anybody is intending the stop them, and I proposed a way to let them continue to function (as we move Python out, into SVN, etc.) > > I'd suggest tagging CVS and making it clear that java gump may deviate > > from documentation, etc but permit changes to the code. My main concern > > +1 Sadly the metadata is shared, and quite soon the <maven entries (supported by Python, not by Java) will destroy the value of the Java ones. It is already happening, this jsut makes it official. > As far as I can see, the Python Gumps are currently in the minority, so it > makes sense to allow the Java Gumps to continue. I'd love to know if that is true, or not. > The more, the merrier, as there's then more chance that the inevitable > installation differences will help find subtle build problems. I thought that, but with one metadata base it is getting unmanageable. We could fork the metadata (I think I proposed that). > Also, none of the Python Gumps seem to make any generated jars available, > even if they are redistributable. They still create them (if redistributable) they just don't publish them. I am working on that very thing. I'd 'guarantee it' if that would grant this your +1. regards Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
