> Actually, having duplicate source files in log4j and log4j-sandbox is > kind of a pain. Given that the set of comitters to log4j and > log4j-sandbox is almost identical (or hopefully will be in the very > near future), there is no need to have duplicates lying around. > > If a committer does not like a change, then they can make comments, > revert it, veto it or whatever. It's CVS after all. > > Admittedly, for controversial changes, it is perhaps better to check > in into the sandbox. But for changes that are non-controversial, there > is no point. BTW, I can't recall any controversial modifications! :-) >
It depends on the level of change. I agree that small changes should not be put into the sandbox. But it is up to the developer to make that call. And, not all comitters will have access to both core and sandbox. Or at least I hope that is the case. I would like to see a lot more developers with sandbox access. Then, when they come up with a useful modification to core classes, they can commit them to the sandbox (with match test cases!) and anyone could try it out, modify, whatever. -Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
