On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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 ?
>
> The problem is that the sandbox is not a subproject, it is a CVS
> repository.
>
> The ASF has deputized Jakarta subprojects to release products using the
> Apache brand.
Ok, and that's exactly what's in the proposal - that Jakarta subprojects
could release products they are developing.
> Before a product is released to the public, it must receive majority
> approval of all the committers to that product. This is our fail-safe.
>
> In the Commons, packages are being developed in small groups, but the
> entire subproject still has to sign-off on a release. The packages will
> be versioned, and safe to use by other products.
In Agora, packages are developed by big groups - and most likely multiple
jakarta subprojects will work togheter and sign-off on a release.
It seems to be a bit more than the commons is offering - not to mention
more testing, and much more review.
Rember that for shared components all subprojects using it have a vote and
are reviewing the code to make sure it works with that project - so
releases will have far more coverage.
In commons you have groups of people each working on few components and
asked to vote for a component they are not directly involved with - this
doesn't sound too good for the quality of the product, does it ?
> If the codebases you want to develop here are to be released and
> distributed by one or more subprojects, as part of their codebase, then
> I believe everyone is fine. But I believe the point of distribution has
> to be one (or more) of the subprojects, or this may not be a legal use
> of the Apache brand.
"Point of distribution" ? I suppose the project(s) that vote to release a
component will be the point of distribution.
> Of course, if Roy Fielding were to say otherwise, then I would have no
> qualm.
And of course, the current proposal that was voted include the option for
jakarta projects to sponsor sub-components - and I don't think you can
change that without invalidating the original vote.
Costin
