Hi Phil, On 12/28/05, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks again. So the real problem is "disjointness." It seems then that > we have three logical alternatives:
I don't think there is a lot of difference any of these. Jakarta commons as a TLP is basically (1) as well. There are definitely some details to sort out, but they are all along the same track. Thinking more about this, I don't know about "pushing things into commons". The important thing is consistent practices, consolidated committers and community, but maybe not the naming. Jakarta BCEL sounds fine to stay that way, as does Jakarta Commons Collections. For scalability, I don't see there is a problem dealing with that in the near future in commons-user or commons-dev (if the notifications from SVN, JIRA, Gump, etc go to a different list). List traffic seems the only barrier here - but I think these are issues to deal with during growth, not up front. - Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
