commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <>
Subject sandbox milestones (was Re: [Latka][Proposal] Make Jelly a required dependency?)
Date Fri, 18 Oct 2002 07:26:10 GMT
From: "Costin Manolache" <>
> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> > My suggestion would be to be patient and let Jelly mature a little
> > more, especially with regards to documentation. When you feel that you
> > are ready, then you can choose to go with commons or directly
> > jakarta. Being in a sandbox has advantages because your project can
> > grow slowly without user pressure. It's kind of like adolescence, when
> > are in it you can't wait to get out, but once out you cannot go back.
> Being is sandbox has the disadvantage that you can't have releases
> ( acording to the current rules for commons ). I think it would be usefull
> to have milestones and betas, so more people can use the code.


Right now quite a few projects depend on stuff thats in the sandbox or in
CVS but thats not been released yet. So for some time various sandbox
projects have had 'milestones' of some form. e.g.

So I guess we have a kinda-release-but-not-really-a-release mechanism for
sandbox components. It certainly allows folks to depend on a certain
snapshot of the code without requiring a full, 1.x, backwards compatible,
supported release.

> Moving to commons would also open the door to more commiters to get
> involved and eventually use it in other projects. Of course, that's
> something you may want or not - it'll start raising questions about
> backward compatibility and stability, and you may loose some control.

Its definitely something I want.

> Getting out of sandbox is usually a signal that things are getting serious
> :-).

Agreed. I'm all for getting serious :-).


Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message