Ted,
The proposal as is today was voted and agreed upon. That includes the
option that a jakarta project can vote and support a sandbox package.
If you remove this - and add additional restrictions on the agora side -
then the whole proposal changes. I'm -1( veto ) on this kind of changes.
I don't think it's fair to agree with something ( that agora should be
part of the library ) and then do "small" changes that will turn agora
into something else.
The current rule is that a jakarta project can "sponsor" a component in
the sandbox/agora. The components in the sandbox/agora are developed by
jakarta commiters, and may included in multiple jakarta projects - so
probably they have a higher quality standard and more review than
most components that will be developed and maintained by 3-4 library
developers.
The libarry has 3 components - the catalog, the mini-jakarta components
developed by groups of library commiters, and the agora/sandbox.
The sandbox is supposed to allow projects to cooperate on
components.
If you want a "playground" - I'm +1 on adding a jakarta-playground to the
proposal.
If you want to fix something - I would propose to rename "sandbox" back to
"agora" - to avoid further confusion. The "sandbox" seems to look more
like a "bazaar" - and there is a big difference between the 2.
Costin
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I believe Jakarta needs an unattached CVS where people can work on code
> before proposing it somewhere else.
>
> This would allow people to develop packages like the DBCP pool first,
> and then propose it to the Commons once they had something to show.
>
> This would also be a useful place for people to work on cross-project
> code. Or draft entirely new subprojects without have to go off to
> SourceForge.
>
> But, I don't believe non-committers should have access to this area. If
> we did permit public access, then politics regarding Apache
> quality-control would kick in, and start to defeat the purpose.
>
> So, to release the code, something developed in the sandbox would have
> to be placed in a CVS where the public does have access, and ultimately
> voted on by the committers for that subproject CVS.
>
> I do truly believe that the functionality of Agora will be available
> through the Commons. Committers from different subprojects can work
> on a common package, and issue a stable release as needed. Each of
> their subprojects can then use that release, the way Jetspeed uses
> releases of Turbine and Velocity.
