On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 13:14 -0400, Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > On Mon, August 8, 2005 12:42 pm, robert burrell donkin said: > > On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 01:54 -0300, Felipe Leme wrote:
<snip> > >> Anyway, the Jakarta Taglib Project has voted how it would like to take > >> part on this new project, and the result was: > >> > >> 1.The Jakarta Taglibs Project would like to be merged into the project > >> 2.The Jakarta Standard Taglib should then be a project of its own > >> 3.The remaining taglibs would be gradually migrated to the new project, > >> the most actives first > >> 4.It's not decided yet if the migrated taglibs would have a newer > >> release prior to the migration > > I'm not sure there was ever a consensus on what the overall structure of > the project would be either (someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that > point)... It seems like there might be a risk of sub-projects within > sub-projects within sub-projects, which I'm not sure would be the best > organizational stucture... if you had Jakarta Taglibs as a sub-component > of the JWP4J project (assume for the sake of argument that name sticks), > and then have Jakarta Standard Taglib as a sub-project of Jakarta Taglibs, > is that the best structure to have? How deep of a hierarchy is OK and how > deep is too deep? any deep is too deep :) AIUI everything will be flat: collective management and only social divisions. standard taglibs will become a jakarta sub-project. BTW is there any real reason not to start the promotion process for standard taglibs ASAP? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
