On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> I'm all for setting things up so that people can do what they need. My
> discomfort is the current proposal combines three use cases:
I agree with that - I'm also uncomfortable with the current wording ( and
the fact that "agora" + "playground" = "sandbox").
> (1) New experimental code that is not available to the public (and
> is not subject to releases or versioning).
This is not my concern, and it was not part of my proposal for agora - we
can have this as "jakarta-playground" if we want, or each commiter can use
a proposals/ in his project.
But we can use jakarat-agora/proposals or something for this kind of
code - it'll be in the same situation with experimental code that is
checked into any jakarta project.
The experimental code is experimental - when it starts to be used in a
stable release of a project it's no longer experimental.
> (2) Code that has been released as part of a subproject (but does
> not have a released state of its own).
That's what I'm interested in and what Agora is supposed to do.
Put this code in a place where other projects can share and use without
any barier.
The idea that "all jakarta commiters are commiters in agora" was intended
exactly for that - we share components, we agree other projects and
commiters with different goals and opinions will have the same right with
us, even if we are the original authors. It was not intended as "we are
all commiters, we can play and do what we want".
> (3) Code that has been accepted into the Commons (and therefore has
> its own release schedule and versioning).
That's again well defined, and it's a clear part of the library.
>
> into only two places where the code might live:
>
> (A) sandbox - for cases 1 and 2.
>
> (B) commons - for case 3.
> I don't like the ambiguity of what code in sandbox means
> under this scenario. Alternatives to solve the problem include:
>
> (a) If a project wants to release something that includes code in the
> sandbox, it must either get it accepted into commons, or copy the
> code back into its own repository.
>
> (b) Add a third reposiory (I guess it would be agora according to the
> current vocabulary) for use case 2.
I would prefer (b) - or
(c) Rename "sandbox" to "agora", make clear that experimental code is
allowed using the same rules that are used for any other jakarta
project. We can have a jakarat-agora/sandbox directory for this kind of
experiments if someone really wants that.
The goal is to keep the code in a common place so more projects
can cooperate on it, and that's why we need a common repository where all
projects have equal access.
We want to promote comunication between projects - not to copy code back
and forth.
Of course, some code will mature and become part of "commons" ( with it's
own maintainers), but some code will continue to be developed and
maintained by the projects that are using it.
Costin
