Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 18174 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2003 14:18:07 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by 208.185.179.12.available.above.net with SMTP; 23 Jan 2003 14:18:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 13354 invoked by uid 97); 23 Jan 2003 14:19:12 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 13264 invoked by uid 97); 23 Jan 2003 14:19:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 13232 invoked by uid 98); 23 Jan 2003 14:19:10 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3E2FF97D.4050001@apache.org> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:17:33 +0100 From: Nicola Ken Barozzi Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org Organization: Apache Software Foundation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakarta Commons Developers List CC: Avalon Developers List , Ant Developers List Subject: Re: [Fwd: Bzip, tar, zip, etc] References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: 208.185.179.12.available.above.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: 208.185.179.12.available.above.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Henri Yandell wrote: > The problem with these is that the developer community never followed the > code. I assume this is some political issue in Jakarta I'm not aware of. > > As far as I know, the Commons idea is that the group who donate the code > are seen as the ones who are the maintainers. The very concept of a > 'Commons committer' is anathema to the Commons charter [although such a > thing does evolve over time]. > > bzip/tar/zip ended up just sitting in Commons waiting for a developer > community to arrive. > > There are a few things here, in decreasing importance: > > 1) Code must be maintained to be worth using. > 2) Code must have a community to be maintained. > 3) The same code ought not to live in more than one place. > 4) Reusable code ought to be in Jakarta Commons. Well said, apart from 4 which I would say "could" instead of "ought to". > Now, if the Ant developers are the only ones doing 1), and they are the > only 2) for the code, then according to 3) the code should be in one > place. This place ought to be Jakarta Commons, but if this is not possible > then it should be in Ant as 4) is the least important of the 4 things. This is why it was put in Commons, but the magic didn't happen ;-) > So, +1 to the Ant guys managing the code inside Commons, +0 to the Ant > guys offering the jars as a separate build. I think the main issue with this is that Ant is somewhat at the top of the Gump dependency graph, and splitting things out is not something that fast and easy to do correctly. MHO is that it would be possible to have Gump bootstrap these packages by using simple javac, give them to Ant that does the same, etc, but it gets complicated quite easily... dunno, I'm not going to do it, and someone has to for these to live in J-C without duplication... So yes, I agree with you. But we have to see if someone is willing to do the Gump changes, or we have to fallback on the ant.multi-jar option. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: