On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ....
> >
> > That's why we need the extra " or sponsored by a jakarta subproject".
>
> I don't think so. I think that additional phrase will lead us back to
> the current situation. As one of the problems that I hope Commons would
> solve is making sure that 'released' components are documented,
> installable and supported. If it's just a tagged set of classes in the
> sandbox, we are back to the same problem we have already - released code
> that a project depends upon that is not the projects main 'deliverable'
> is undocumented, not independantly buildable, testable, and installable,
> and largely hidden from public view because it's not separated and
> promoted.
Than what's the problem ??? You think the problem the commons would
resolve is "released" components - you have that.
Why don't you let other people to try a different thing ? I am interested
in sharing the work on some common components - I don't care too much
about releasing the components, it is not my main goal. I think this will
happen as a side effect, because the code will be subject to a bigger
community and in direct contact with the projects using it.
But the fundamental issue is this intolerance I find again and again and
again in jakarta - why does everyone things that there is only one
solution and one way to do something ?
It is very likely that agora will fail - as far as I can tell intolerance
is the rule here, and Agora's can't succeed in such environment. But we
can try - maybe there are people who can repect other's ideas and not try
to impose their will and solution.
What's the problem ? Is the library the guardian of Apache quality, the
only absolut experts in components ? Are jakarta projects some stupid
entities who can't be trusted to release something to the public ?
Your development model is wonderful - but it's not the only one.
Costin
>
> > 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.
>
> Why? There isn't much real difference between 'play-ground' and 'place
> to collaborate on unreleased components' as far as I can tell. It's a
> subjective distinction, isn't it?
>
> > 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.
>
> Right - but there should be something to release - just tagging a
> collection of classes doesn't a release make, for the purposes of the
> Commons project.
>
> geir
>
>
