Mailing-List: contact commons-process-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: commons-process@jakarta.apache.org
From: =?us-ascii?Q?Magnus_=3For_Torfason?= <magnus@handtolvur.is>
To: <commons-process@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Adding a committer : Catch-22
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:00:08 -0000
Message-ID: <CEEOIHGDOOJOCPHOGCBGAEAAFPAA.magnus@handtolvur.is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3C73ACA0.8080207@mongrel.homechoice.co.uk>


> Magnus,
>
> Your views on the quality of Avalon code are way off.
>
> - Paul

I am extremely sorry if you took my comments as a statement regarding the
quality of Avalon code.

My point (deduced f.e. from Email components and Base64 components from
within specific projects, not from Avalon code) is that specific packages,
while working very well within their context, are not always directly usable
on their own.  Configuration methods may be missing, so when used out of
context, they need some tinkering with, even if they work perfectly within
the context of the application.

So what I meant to say that this difference may, in general (I am NOT
referring to this special case), justify handling the addition of a
component to Commons (Three committers and other formalities Geir is
mentioning), differently from adding a new component to a project, where it
is to be used only by those that are using that project itself.

Best regards,

Magnus