-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday, July 26, 2001, at 03:50 PM, burtonator wrote:
I might agree with that. But IMO we have a lot of things that are out of
scope?
Ant? James? Log4J? Regexp? Come on? Don't get me
Kevin Burton wrote:
I think we are just on the classic slippery slope. It will probably
get worse before there is uniform acceptance that it exists.
Or that it splits.
One could easily imagine that a database and related projects merits its
own PMC.
- Sam Ruby
I'm a loss to understand the problem. People assert that projects are
out of scope yet also assert how much they like them. Is it not better
to generate good code that lots of people use than to nitpick about
staying in scope? If Jakarta is home to a bunch of projects that people
think are
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Ruby
writes:
Duplication (e.g., multiple templating technologies) doesn't bother me so
much as different focus.
An RDB is a big endeavor.
I'm sorry, I didn't indicate that I wasn't addressing the RDB proposal,
but rather the ancillary comments about Ant,
Sam Ruby at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another thing to take into consideration is the wishes of the majority of
committers of the code base. Particularly existing code bases. If the
majority of committers of any project (or even a group of projects
collectively) decided that they no longer
