ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Randall J. Parr" <RP...@TemporalArts.COM>
Subject Re: PMC official business
Date Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:58:48 GMT
Sam Ruby wrote:

> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> >
> > ps: On a related note, I don't think this discussion should be
> > held on the ant-dev list. Shouldn't there be a list for
> > project wide (Jakarta) discussions?
>
> There is a list for project wide (Jakarta) discussions - it is
> general@jakarta.apache.org.  Feel free to copy that list and attach any or
> all of this there.
>
> I have a number of specific reasons why I wanted to initiate a discussion
> to be followed up by a vote by the Ant community.  The original charter for
> Jakarta was for Tomcat, and Ant is the project that is simultaneously most
> out of scope, most likely to be self-sustaining, and had a recent crisis of
> sorts concerning the scope of the PMC versus the wishes of the majority of
> committers.
>
> If despite all of this, the wishes of the majority of the committers of
> this project wish to remain as a part of Jakarta, then my job of getting
> approval for an expanded scope is considerably simpler.

I would definitely prefer that Ant (and ORO, Log4J, ...) stay an Apache project
and/or subproject.

Given a choice of several packages (eg. in the case of regular expression
packages) I will almost always recommend/opt for software that's part of an
Apache "sanctioned" project. I believe it will have broader support, is much
more likely to continue to be actively developed, and is much more likely to be
used in other projects (Apache, commercial, and open). Further, I find it
MUCH easier to get approval and/or concensus to use software from an Apache
project than most other sources.

I would argue that ORO, RegExpr, even Log4J are just as much out of scope as
Ant.

I would prefer to see development tools and packages such as these migrate to a
common Apache "dev", "tools", "base", whaterver project.

I would like to see that project expanded to include packages to handle some of
the common problems such as configuration/property handling that I see being
solved over and over again in the different Apache projects.

Further, I would like to see a preference (not a rule) for Apache projects to
use these common development tools. As someone stated in another message, when
Apache includes log4j that says to me (maybe incorrectly) Apache thinks this is
the package to use (at least one of the best to use).  It is very frustrating to
see Apache projects, even subprojects in the same project all using a different
methods to handle configruation and logging. It really raises the learning curve
for using the software and raises the learning curve for contributing even
higher.

My 2 cents (well maybe a nickel).

R.Parr
Temporal Arts


Mime
View raw message