But they do seem to have quite a number of the characteristics of subprojects: their architectures are quite vastly different (especially Xerces-C and Xerces-J 2, the most active); with a few exceptions their committer bases are disjoint--and in the two cases I'm aware of in which [...] Does that meet any of your concerns?
Not really.
I guess the problem I have with it is that, to me, a sub- project should be related to a parent project which has some physical code. But if you make Xerces-J, Xerces-C, etc. sub-projects, what is their parent? An HTML document with links to the respective sets of documentation? That doesn't really seem like a project.
And if the Xerces sub-projects are defined as a parser in a particular language, where is the room to add real sub-projects related to a particular parser codebase? As written, this charter doesn't allow for that -- donations would have to be fully adopted into the codebase for a parser code in a particular language.
Disjoint developer communities for parser implementations does not imply that they should be separate sub-projects. So I don't think that I can support this draft of the new charter.
Anyone in dis/agreement? What are your thoughts?
-- Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
