On 3/5/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/5/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hola, > > Martin, I agree with almost everything you've said, except this: > > > > > But why? If I'm a user looking for something to help me out in my > > > development, I don't really care that much if it's active or not. What I > > > > I do care, a lot, as a user. Active means bugs are getting fixed, the > > mailing lists are a reasonable source for help, and if new standards > > become relevant or new features are requested by numerous, there's a > > good chance the product will evolve to comply with them. As a user > > who doesn't have Apache commit privilges and who doesn't want to fork > > a product just to use it, activity versus dormancy is a HUGE factor in > > choosing a product. > > > You snipped out the part that explains what you quoted. ;-) > > "What I care about is if it does the job. If there are problems with it, > then I might care about whether it's active or not" > > If you are saying that you wouldn't even try out a component that's marked > as 'inactive', to see if it does what you need, then I think it would be a > *huge* disservice to flag components as inactive right on the front page, > because then people might not even look at them, even if they're "done" and > would completely fit their needs. Marking a component as 'inactive' would > then be the final nail in its coffin.
i quite agree! > -- > Martin Cooper > > > Yoav > > > > -- > > Yoav Shapira > > Senior Architect > > Nimalex LLC > > 1 Mifflin Place, Suite 310 > > Cambridge, MA, USA > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
