Martin van den Bemt wrote on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:16 AM:
That's quite problematic : Jakarta is responsible for
jakarta.apache.org, not commons, sharing that
responsibility will just complicate things a lot.
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though
repeating myself here) :
On 5/22/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) :
Let (a flattened)
commons become Jakarta..
I thought that that idea was unpopular with some commons commiters on this PMC?
d.
On 5/22/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/22/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) :
Let (a flattened)
commons become Jakarta..
I thought that that idea was unpopular with some commons
On 5/22/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Yes, of course, there are passionate believers in the development
of particular libraries. Are there enough to make a viable community
for *any* of the libraries on their own? Or enough that care about
the Commons ecosystem as a whole
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Henri Yandell wrote:
Don't your jars contain the version number too?
Yeah, everything seems to :/
The most recent release types I've done are the type where you create
the exact release and put it in your ~login where it's voted on. I like
this because it makes the
- Original Message
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/22/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Yes, of course, there are passionate believers in the development
of particular libraries. Are there enough to make a viable community
for *any* of the libraries on
Hi Stephen,
Stephen Colebourne wrote on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:43 PM:
[snip]
In summary:
a) I believe the status quo is not viable
b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two
mismatched groups
c) I believe that commons is big enough and strong enough to be a TLP
So, I
On 5/22/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In summary:
a) I believe the status quo is not viable
b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two mismatched groups
My suggestion was to merge the Jakarta subprojects into the Commons,
not the other way around.
* The
On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect.
However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP.
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution
Please add your name if you're a Commons
On 5/22/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quick summary of this thread 28 Votes for (23 binding), 4 against (3
binding). Seems to me that those objecting don't seem to have
pursuaded people to change their vote. At what point do we decide on a
result?
I think you just did :)
Henri Yandell wrote:
* Slide. There's some sign of activity here. Not enough yet.
* Cactus. Tiny bit of activity, again not enough for a TLP.
* JMeter. Lots of commits from Sebb, but not a big community.
For all three of these the best solution I can think of is to move
them to the Incubator.
11 matches
Mail list logo
