27 messages in org.apache.commons.devRe: [feedparser] News / Status| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Niall Pemberton | Mar 2, 2006 3:10 am | |
| Henri Yandell | Mar 2, 2006 7:46 am | |
| Rahul Akolkar | Mar 2, 2006 9:06 am | |
| Rahul Akolkar | Mar 2, 2006 9:09 am | |
| James Carman | Mar 2, 2006 9:11 am | |
| Henri Yandell | Mar 2, 2006 9:13 am | |
| Henri Yandell | Mar 2, 2006 9:14 am | |
| James Carman | Mar 2, 2006 9:16 am | |
| Martin Cooper | Mar 2, 2006 9:35 am | |
| Martin Cooper | Mar 2, 2006 9:40 am | |
| Craig McClanahan | Mar 2, 2006 10:06 am | |
| Stephen Colebourne | Mar 2, 2006 11:14 am | |
| Simon Kitching | Mar 2, 2006 11:26 am | |
| robert burrell donkin | Mar 2, 2006 2:13 pm | |
| Rahul Akolkar | Mar 2, 2006 2:49 pm | |
| Rahul Akolkar | Mar 2, 2006 2:53 pm | |
| Rahul Akolkar | Mar 2, 2006 3:02 pm | |
| Simon Kitching | Mar 2, 2006 4:51 pm | |
| Simon Kitching | Mar 2, 2006 5:03 pm | |
| Noel J. Bergman | Mar 2, 2006 5:16 pm | |
| Henri Yandell | Mar 2, 2006 5:26 pm | |
| Sandy McArthur | Mar 2, 2006 5:54 pm | |
| James Carman | Mar 2, 2006 6:08 pm | |
| Rahul Akolkar | Mar 2, 2006 6:38 pm | |
| Rahul Akolkar | Mar 2, 2006 6:45 pm | |
| Rahul Akolkar | Mar 2, 2006 6:49 pm | |
| Martin Cooper | Mar 2, 2006 6:50 pm |
| Subject: | Re: [feedparser] News / Status | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Martin Cooper (mart...@apache.org) | |
| Date: | Mar 2, 2006 6:50:02 pm | |
| List: | org.apache.commons.dev | |
On 3/2/06, Rahul Akolkar <rahu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/06, Simon Kitching <skit...@apache.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 17:50 -0500, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
<snip/>
Is that really the only reason? With [proxy] (and [scxml] as well), one of the glaring reasons I see is that they're still in sandbox. We *couldn't* release them right now, irrespective of how daunting the task of cutting a release may be. I'd say, its different.
What you can't do is have binaries built from sandbox code then distributed from the official Apache mirrors. And that seems right to me; distribution from the official site(s) implies that the project has passed Apache's tests for quality -- including having a community of developers trusted by Apache to verify and maintain it.
<snap/>
Yes, I'm aware, and completely agree.
The fact that the code is still in the sandbox implies that the project has NOT passed those tests. It doesn't mean the code isn't good; it may be brilliant. However if there isn't a community of existing apache committers looking at the code, Apache doesn't *know* it's brilliant.
<snip/>
... sure, à la "see the light".
I believe that binaries can still be built from sandbox code and distributed from your people.apache.org address, and that the sandbox site can point to that location as a source of "unofficial" binaries.
<snap/>
Even better, we have nightlies, thanks to Craig.
If SCXML is factored out of an existing project, then can't you get half-a-dozen committers from that project to put themselves forward as commons committers then call for the promotion of SCXML followed by a release? Approval of existing committers from another Apache project won't take long, as long as they really are serious about verifying and maintaing SCXML.
<snip/>
Half-a-dozen, such luxuries is Commons talk ;-) You probably need to have been recently active in Taglibs to know what I'm talking about.
<tongue-in-cheek> So then nobody knows what you're talking about. </tongue-in-cheek>
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)
-- Martin Cooper
In any case, based on the growing interest in [scxml] on the
CommonsPeople wiki page [1], which currently shows atleast 5 committers interested in [scxml] (in theory or more), I'm happy to give this more time. I probably naively believe that more of us will see its merit, and I plan on staying that way for a while ;-)
-Rahul
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/CommonsPeople
Cheers,
Simon