On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> Hmm, it seems to me that this is going to create ambiguity about the code
> in the sandbox, because there will be (at least) two flavors:
>
> * Code being experimented with, played with, evaluated, but not
> yet used anywhere (i.e. what I had understood the sandbox was for).
>
> * Code being experimented with, played with, evaluated, AND released
> as part of another subproject, even though it has not been proposed
> to (or accepted by) Commons.
That's the result of merging the "agora" into "sandbox".
I agree, this is confusing with respect to the intentions of the proposal
that resulted in this wording.
The workspace that we discussed about ( and is now called sandbox ) was
not supposed to be a place where people can play, but a place where
projects and commiters can share code in a common environment.
For experiment and play each can use his own local directory.
I think the second "flavor" is consistent with the intentions in the agora
proposal.
Is it to late to rename "sandbox" to agora ? AFAIK "commons" was found as
a better name for the overal project, but I don't remember a decision to
call the shared workspace as a "sandbox" - and I agree with Craig that
this is confusing in many ways.
> It would seem better to me that a subproject wanting to use sandbox code
> in a release should do one of the following:
>
> * Propose the code to Commons, with the associated willingness to
> support it.
>
> * Take the code to be released back into its own CVS repository
> until such time as it is proposed to, and accepted by, Commons.
>
> This is also more consistent with the restriction in (1.5.1) that sandbox
> code cannot be "released to the public" until accepted by Commons. To me,
> including that code in a subproject release counts as "released to the
> public".
That's why we need the extra " or sponsored by a jakarta subproject".
Removing this option will alter the original proposal in a significant way
- those words were added to reach a compromise, and by transforming the
agora into a play-ground the whole thing changes.
In which case I think we are back to the initial position - as the
original vote on library-dev was based on the assumption that jakarta
subprojects can release and cooperate on sandbox projects, and the sandbox
was supposed to be an sharing place, not a playground.
Costin
