commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re:
Date Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:13:35 GMT

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >
> > In broader terms however:
> > a) The status of both the [util] and [email] components within
> > jakarta-commons-sandbox is that of unreleased code, no matter how stable.
> > Deprecation is not required.
> Indefinately?  Is that good for the [util], [email], commons, jakarta,
> or the ASF?

That unreleased code is considered to not be something which a user has a
right to believe the ASF are maintaining? Definitely.

> > b) The [util] component is generally viewed as a 'dumping ground' for code
> > that doesn't fit in elsewhere, and might better be named 'misc' or
> > 'homeless'. The changes were designed to give [util] a chance of a release.
> ...dumped and homeless...

[util] is an oddball in that it is a dumping ground, effectively the
Commons of the Commons.

Raises another question. Is it right to cvs remove files or should they be
being 'trashcanned' in a more readable place? When a piece of code is
considered to be unwanted, rather than just a cvs remove in the day to day
action of a piece of code changing name etc.

> > c) Commons must have the right to make changes to code and manage its own
> > releases and components. This should apply whether it is code written
> > specifically for commons, or donated to commons from another jakarta
> > project. If this is not the case then commons is simply a 'dumping ground'
> > for other jakarta projects hoping to off-load maintainance, rather than a
> > vibrant community in its own right.
> Self-managed would be nice.  Can you honestly say that's what we have now?

What you have now is a dichotomy between the owners of the code, ie) other
project members, and the people wanting to maintain and take the code
forward, ie) commons developers.

The charter suggests they should be one and the same, but they're not. I
think I'm a prime example of why not. I came to Commons from the Taglibs
project, and now spend far more time in Commons on Lang/Collections etc
than I do on the String Taglib. I imagine most people do the opposite to
me as the projects they come from are larger than the code they donate.

Jon's issue here is understandable from his side of the wedge, 1 class,
but I don't believe in it from the other side, lots of classes all being
merged, sifted and squeezed.

Incidentally, while I don't think Stephen is alluding to this, the charter
mentions that the PMC are meant to ratify every release etc. Is this being
done stealthily at the moment, will the PMC be doing it in the future [how
do we fit into that system?] or will that be removed from the charter?


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

View raw message