On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The mechanics are simple - make it as open as possible to the needs of
> > jakarta subprojects. Don't force any pre-set solution, but let them choose
> > how to use the commons. After all, we are talking about clearly defined
> > entities that have the right to choose on their own.
>
> I believe the only area of concern are the points of public release.
>
> As long as we are agreed that the sandbox CVS is
>
> (1) Open to all Jakarta Committers, and
> (2) Closed to the public
>
> then I think everything else falls into place for all of us.
Depends on how do you define "closed to the public".
Something can't get out of the sandbox on "it's own" - you can't just
start something and then release it to public. I agree with that.
But in the same way as a component can be released as result of a vote
of library commiters ( who assume the responsibilty to maintain it and
insure the quality ), it can be as well released by the result of a vote
of another project.
I think Craig is right in one aspect - the current proposal combines the
"playground" with "agora" into that "sandbox" - and this is the real
problem.
I'm not interested in the playground - if a commiter wants to play he can
use a proposal/ space in his project or use source forge. Having something
open to all commiters is not intended to allow them to play, but to allow
projects to cooperate freely on common code.
For Agora - where most of the code is supported by at least one jakarta
project, and the goal is to get multiple projects behind each package - I
think the code should be available to the public ( and will be as part of
the projects anyway - nobody can't stop that ). If the projects are
willing to support it as standalone componente ( maybe because it'll be
easier to upgrade or distribute localized fixes ) - than they should be
able to do so.
Costin
