commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
Subject Re: [Vote] ARMI to move
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:59:25 GMT
I am going to go through these in order - I looked ahead and am fascinated
at what the process has become.

Note that is really my interest - while I know nothing of you or the project
yet, you are spoken highly of...


On 1/9/02 4:17 AM, "Paul Hammant" <Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Geir,
> 
>>>> Geir :
>>>> Don't you need more active committers?
>>>> 
>>> Some could argue that.  Is that a -1 for you then? :-)
>>> 
>> 
>> If you'd prefer, sure.
>> 
> 
> I don't of course, just trying tio elicit a vote :-)
> 
>> The point is that we in the midst of a large, active discussion in part
>> about how the community is being shaped by adding more and more projects to
>> jakarta, and how some strongly feel that it's a shame that we can't get
>> people to adhere to 'community conventions'.  (Which I personally feel can
>> be too loosely defined... But anyway...)
>> 
>> In this case, it's not even a guideline of commons, but one of the rules.  I
>> don't think we should be so flip about it.
>> 
>> The point of the sandbox is to build/introduce something and see if it as a
>> project can get momentum, build a community, get a clear picture if there is
>> enough interest behind something to bring to Commons with the expectation of
>> success towards a release, not just a 'dressing room...'
>> 
> 
> I've been watching the discussions,  It's all good debate.  I'm guilty
> of developing something from start to completion (more or less) in about
> two weeks *without* a community.  Now I was going to do it in
> Avalon-Excalibur but then we recieved an invitation to move some widely
> re-usable stuff into Commons.  I'm faced with two rude options:
> 
> 1) Bring over some Avalon committers and make a community for ARMI.
> i.e. gerrymandering.

To me, that's cool, if they are really interested.  If not, and you are just
getting two names to throw on there, then yes, gerrymandering is indeed a
good word for it - you can understand why that¹s against the spirit of the
commons rules.

If it's not, then we should simply alter the rule, as it serves no purpose.


> 2) Take it back to excalibur mad just shove it in (where it becomes a
> tool amngst many that already have a community).

That could work too.
 
> As soon as it is bedded in somewhere permanent, I'll be firing more
> components into Avalon-Cornerstone that uses it for general reuse.  I'll
> then change Avalon-Cornserstone/apps/ftpserver and apps/AvalonDB to
> directly use those 'blocks' If it works well with these two, I'll make
> representations to the JAMES team to do the same.  I'm make some bsh
> scripts so that BeanShell can use it, then rest my weary fingers for a
> while.   It, after a pause of some months, it proves to be working well
> Peter Donald (as I pester him) might consider it for an alternative
> Kernel for Avalon-Pheonix (alternate as in an extension of the current).
> 
> Advise?

About Peter?  I don't understand the man myself :)

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr.                                     geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
Be a giant.  Take giant steps.  Do giant things...


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


Mime
View raw message