Ok, my head hurts - either I'm too tired or too many people are talking at
the same time about the same thing in too many different ways.
One thing is clear - almost nobody knows what is avalon, and it seems a
reasonable majority preferes a separate project.
Another thing is also clear - the name and organization will be what the
majority of commiters decide - and arguing about which is better is mostly
a waste of time.
And another thing that I think is clear - components can and will be
developed, and almost everyone agrees that it doesn't matter so much where
( avalon, agora, commons, inside projects ) - all it matters is the
quality of the code and to be easy to pull.
So please, let's stop arguing about names: having a list with all
proposed names - including avalon - in the proposal will be enough, and
counting should be all that's needed.
Peter - except for naming the library avalon-library ( if the commiters
agree with that ) I don't think there is anything else we can do - the
current code from avalon needs work before beeing ready for the library,
and it should be treated the same way as all other project's components,
and the library commiters will include by default all avalon commiters.
I think avalon would be a bad choice - so I'll put my +1 next to either
agora or library ( sorry for "commons", but it's a new word for me ).
Costin
