Mailing-List: contact commons-process-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: commons-process@jakarta.apache.org
Message-ID: <3C73ACA0.8080207@mongrel.homechoice.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:03:12 +0000
From: Paul Hammant <mongrel@mongrel.homechoice.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: commons-process@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding a committer : Catch-22
References: <CEEOIHGDOOJOCPHOGCBGKEPLFOAA.magnus@handtolvur.is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Magnus,

Your views on the quality of Avalon code are way off.

- Paul

>>But in Avalon I could add my committer (granted with maybe one more
>>patch submission) because the project (Avalon) is viable.  I would not
>>be questioed there in adding the AltRMI packages to avalon package trees.
>>
>
>Yes, but the stability and sustainability requirements would then be
>significantly lower.  If I were to use a component from within Avalon, I
>would expect that it may not work out of context, and I may need to make
>modifications and fixes.
>
>If I get the component from commons, I do not think that the same level of
>quality would be acceptable.  Hence, it is not such a weird idea that the
>requirements for commitment are higher.
>
>>- Paul
>>
>
>Regards,
>
>Magnus
>
>
>