On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> > "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > +1
>
> In other words - your development model is ok, nothing else should be
> accepted.
>
Seems to me that you are advocating exactly the same "intolerance" :-).
Seriously Costin, just because *you* don't want a playground where people
can experiment together doesn't mean that *other* people don't. Why
should we have to go to SourceForge just to have folks from multiple
projects get together and see if we can create a common Foo. If it works,
great -- it gets turned into a Commons project and used. If it doesn't
work, oh well, the practice of working together was still worthwhile (and
saved duplicated efforts as well).
I want a playground, in addition to whatever else that the library
subproject offers me. If you don't want to use it, that's fine -- that's
your right. But you're going to get -1'd if you try to take that away
from people who want it.
You want a place where code that is actually being shared and released as
part of Jakarta subprojects is collaborated on and maintained. I do too
-- my contention (and the part of this we agree on) is that this should
*not* be done in the same place as the playground. That theme seems to be
commonly accepted. So where do we go next?
Your option (3), taking away the playground, is not going to fly. Thus,
we're back to two choices:
(1) Require that any code used in part of a release by either
in Commons or in the project's CVS repository (i.e. no release
of code from a playground).
(2) Add a third repository for code that is being maintained and
released in one or more subprojects, but is not in Commons.
As I stated before, I prefer (1), but could be persuaded to (2) if there
were rational reasons for it. I haven't heard any yet. And I haven't
heard a third alternative that has a chance of getting approved.
>
>
> Costin
>
>
Craig
