Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 15 Jun 2011, at 10:08, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > But: > - the entry for a lab is to strict (only experimental features, see > discussion between Ross and myself) I don't think I ever said *only*, I said it is expected that there will be lots of fast fail experiments. There is actually only one entry rule - "are you an Apache committed?" > - how can a lab become successful with so much rules (no releases)? Labs are not supposed to be successful it's a fast fail environment. That's the key point for me. > > >> I see it as entirely fine that labs should go quiet from time to time, and >> believe the only thing we really should do in this situation perhaps is >> advertise labs more widely. > > We should first discuss if there is still a real need of labs before > putting more effort in it - my 2 cents The overhead of maintaining labs is minimal, the benefits are potentially large (not all fast fail experiments will fail). I believe there is a need. I agree w can make better use if labs. But I don't think changing it's purpose will have that effect, at least not in any of the ways proposed so far. Ross > > Cheers > Christian > >> >> Regards, >> Graham >> -- >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org >> >> > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org >
