avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Releasing excalibur subprojects
Date Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:58:50 GMT


Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
>>
>>Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>can someone give me a hint on what's the procedure to release a
>>>subproject? Is a vote necessary?
>>
>>For releases, always, as said in our Project Guidelines.
>>
>>"
>>Release Plan
>>
>>A release plan is used to keep all volunteers aware of when a release is 
>>desired, who will be the release manager, when the repository will be 
>>frozen to create a release, and other assorted information to keep 
>>volunteers from tripping over each other. Lazy majority decides each 
>>issue in a release plan.
>>
>>Release Testing
>>
>>After a new release is built, it must be tested before being released to 
>>the public. Majority approval is required before the release can be made.
>>"
>>
> In our case the components are tested very well in Cocoon.

Yes. Now the majority vote :-)

>>>I want to release the store, the xmlutil and the sourceresolve
>>>subprojects. Anyone against it?
>>
>>Before releasing excalibur components, I prefer to check if we can move 
>>the stuff elswhere, before creating a legacy here.
>>
>>So -1 till anyone wanting to release excalibur stuff explains why these 
>>have to be released here versus be in some kind of Commons.
>>
> 
> Ah, the good old discussion about commons vs. avalon. Great!

It's not a discussion, it's a simple fact.
If a component has no needed dependencies to Avalon Framework, it should 
go in Commons.

>>Now more specific points:
>>- xmlutil -1: seems like a package for xml-commons, no Avalon dependency
>>
> 
> Hmm, xmlutil provides Avalon components. I'm fine with moving them if
> xml-commons wants to have a dependency on avalon.

Sorry, I somehow looked at another xmlutil package I had on my hd, in 
fact yes, they are Avalon xml components.

+1

BTW, I would /personally/ not call them xmlutil, but simply xml, as 
javax.xml...
Usually *util is used for helper classes and static methods, which is 
not the case here.

>>- sourceresolve +1: seems like a non-commons-convertible Avalon 
>>component to me
>>
>>- store -0: it *is* an Avalon Component, but there is a cool simplestore 
>>package in Jakarta-commons-sandbox, written by Gerhard Froehlich 
>>(g-froehlich@gmx.de) Juozas Baliuka (baliuka@mwm.lt).
>>Gerhard, what's the status? Can't we make our store use simplestore as 
>>an impl?
>>
> 
> Again, this project defines components (with an implementation). It is
> of course possible to add an implementation which uses a commons-sandbox
> implementation - but that's optional in my eyes.

After the mail of Gerhard, +1.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message