"Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not as confident as some on this list that any component like a Digester or DB
> > connection pool would ever grow to the status of a "top level" project. I think
> > there is a level of functional complexity, and size of developer community, that
> > distinguishes a "project" from a "component". For many of the components we're
> > talking about, can you imagine that even the three developer minimum can be
> > reached, after the original burst of interest dies down? I can't.
>
> I agree. I don't think DBCP will ever be a 'top level project'. That's
> why I think having a place for these to live is important. That said, I
> also think that each meant to be standalone should follow the 'top level
> project' semantics of having docs, a cleanly buildable jar, etc.
>
+1, except for having separate mailing lists (if you included that in "etc." :-). A
common list for all the library components seems more practical, and better at
encouraging the use of other components in the library ("gee, I didn't know we had a
FOO
until I saw a question about it on commons-dev").
>
> And when things do stablilize and developer interest dies down (and user
> interest increases :) which I think is a natural process, then it's ok
> to have a single committer acting as 'trustee' if development isn't
> ongoing but its still used.
>
+1. In the taglibs case, everyone has commit access to the entire CVS repository, but
there is (at least informal) recognition of a primary committer, and courtesy about
making changes to things that you are not the primary committer for.
>
> geir
>
Craig
