> > 1) A central resource 'repository', as envisioned by Costin
> > (and others).
> >
> > 2) A central component 'Catalog', as envisioned by myself
> > (and others).
>
> Perhaps I'm dense, but I really don't see a sharp dividing line between the
> two.
>
> Is the point of #1 to include things that have absolutely nothing to do
> with the Jakarta mission? If so, -1.
If #1 is what I propose ( see the "agora" proposal ) - no, the point is to
act as a helper for projects - not to include things.
> The essense of both is that ability to tolerate duplication and the desire
> to minimize dependencies. Note that I didn't say encourage duplication or
> eliminate dependencies; neither goal is practical or useful.
That's exactly what I should have said - this sums all my mails, if you
add "and the desire to increase inter-project cooperation" ( with "and" as
separator, not "xor" )
> If the difference is whether or not we should include people whether or not
> they have expressed any desire to contribute, then I will openly admit that
> I don't see the point of automatic inclusion at this time.
I agree - sorry if I sugested anything else. My proposal was even more
restrictive - not include "people who express their desire ...", not even
"commiters who express their desire" - but "projects that use the
component and need to contribute for their needs " and commiters from
those projects who want to contribute ( and make the component a good fit
for their project ).
Costin
