Re: mailing lists for components [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
Martin Cooper wrote: +1 to just one dev and one user list, shared for all components, a la Jakarta Commons. Me too... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailing lists for components [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 14:33 -0400, Martin Cooper wrote: On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: 4.1 in the guidelines repeats the error that I thought was fixed in the j-c guidelines saying that each package has its own mailing list. If that is intentional, I think that is a *bad* idea, especially to start. it was intentional in as much as it was a copy of the jakarta commons charter :) Don't like the many little lists implied by 11 -- dev + user works fine in j-c (I know some disagree, but I personally view this as the key to the health of j-c) i agree. just dev and user lists. in jakarta commons, the common mailing lists hold together the single community. i'd like to see just one mailing list with components using prefixing (as per jakarta commons). i'd like to see changes to the draft so that it's clear that this will be the arrangement. opinions? +1 to just one dev and one user list, shared for all components, a la Jakarta Commons. i think we've established a consensus on this. any objections to amending the draft appropriately? - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailing lists for components [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: 4.1 in the guidelines repeats the error that I thought was fixed in the j-c guidelines saying that each package has its own mailing list. If that is intentional, I think that is a *bad* idea, especially to start. it was intentional in as much as it was a copy of the jakarta commons charter :) Don't like the many little lists implied by 11 -- dev + user works fine in j-c (I know some disagree, but I personally view this as the key to the health of j-c) i agree. just dev and user lists. in jakarta commons, the common mailing lists hold together the single community. i'd like to see just one mailing list with components using prefixing (as per jakarta commons). i'd like to see changes to the draft so that it's clear that this will be the arrangement. opinions? +1 to just one dev and one user list, shared for all components, a la Jakarta Commons. -- Martin Cooper - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailing lists for components [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: 4.1 in the guidelines repeats the error that I thought was fixed in the j-c guidelines saying that each package has its own mailing list. If that is intentional, I think that is a *bad* idea, especially to start. it was intentional in as much as it was a copy of the jakarta commons charter :) Don't like the many little lists implied by 11 -- dev + user works fine in j-c (I know some disagree, but I personally view this as the key to the health of j-c) i agree. just dev and user lists. in jakarta commons, the common mailing lists hold together the single community. i'd like to see just one mailing list with components using prefixing (as per jakarta commons). i'd like to see changes to the draft so that it's clear that this will be the arrangement. opinions? - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailing lists for components [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: 4.1 in the guidelines repeats the error that I thought was fixed in the j-c guidelines saying that each package has its own mailing list. If that is intentional, I think that is a *bad* idea, especially to start. it was intentional in as much as it was a copy of the jakarta commons charter :) Don't like the many little lists implied by 11 -- dev + user works fine in j-c (I know some disagree, but I personally view this as the key to the health of j-c) i agree. just dev and user lists. in jakarta commons, the common mailing lists hold together the single community. i'd like to see just one mailing list with components using prefixing (as per jakarta commons). i'd like to see changes to the draft so that it's clear that this will be the arrangement. opinions? +1 (non-binding) In conjunction to the points stated above, I see this as the key value add to the Taglibs community (if Taglibs indeed decides to join in). In my opinion, separate mailing lists will make this a harder sell to Taglibs. -Rahul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
