Stephen,
I think Sebb does have a valid point.
Using CLI as an example, I'm not sure that there is a shared sense of
responsibility for it.
CLI 1.x has had an issue open against it since 2006-03 with only
recent activity on it, and Henri's comment in that issue from 2007-03
("CLI is still pretty much a dead commons component. No one's actively
working on it.") is damning evidence.
On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do all the Commons sub-projects have sufficient numbers ot committers
> to justify them remaining in Commons? For example CLI has not even had
> a formal release yet and has been far less active than JMeter, but is
> still protected by being in Commons.
Commons components are not the equivalent of Jakarta sub-projects.
That is a key factor as to why commons can continue to function, when Jakarta
has died.
The difference is that everyone is responsible for everything in Commons,
whereas in Jakarta people only take responsibility for their own area. Now,
thats not to say that every Commons developer cares equally about every Commons
component, but there is a strong sense of shared responsibility. Anyone can
review/support/oppose a commit/idea/release.
Thus, your original question re CLI doesn't really apply in the same way.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
dIon Gillard
Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
