Sam Ruby wrote: > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > Just like Gump which is not a subproject on its own, Forrest doesn't > > deserve that status neither as long as it remains a single-man show > > (and my experience tells me it will very likely remain so if the > > above goals are met) > > We are already up to two. I'd like to see the build system build upon > Gump (let me rephrase that: since I'm volunteering, the build system > *WILL* build upon Gump). Perhaps Gump itself didn't have enough > technical critical mass to become a project, but perhaps Forrest+Gump > does.
OTOH since both Gump and Forrest are doing cross-project stuff, would it be a good idea to put them into xml-commons? Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
