commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Tirsén <...@tirsen.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] promote commons attributes to the commons proper
Date Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:19:17 GMT
I think we could be able for a 0.1 release almost immediately. It's been
in use and I although I know there's a bunch of bugs in it (whom I have
fixed in my fork...) it's nothing catastrophic.

The stuff we have done in the Nanning-fork is speed-enhancements (a
lot!), bug-fixes (tons!) and support for inner classes. Unfortunately
the fork has quite a bit of different API, but that could be fixed. We
would be able to do this within weeks and then in my opinion it's time
for 1.0-beta (it's basically feature-complete as I see it.

Be aware that we had been using commons-attributes (or Nanning) for
quite some time before it ended up here. The fork we have used for even
longer and it is part of at least two commercial products deployed and
in use at several customer sites. I would say that commons-attributes
(or at least the fork that's in Nanning) is a success story.

On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 21:47, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i agree with stephen that i think that components promoted need to be 
> ready to have some kind of release as soon as they've been promoted. i'm 
> not bothered whether it's a 0.1, an alpha or whatever but really we need 
> some release out there for folks to depend upon. i've been burnt this way 
> with betwixt and so i'd hope that others will benefited from some tough 
> love ;)
> 
> now paul's on the case and there seems to be the necessary momentum, i don'
> t see why this should happen pretty quickly. other than merging in the 
> latest contributions from jon and improving the documentation, what needs 
> to be done to be able to for a 0.1 release?
> 
> - robert
> 
> On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 01:23 PM, scolebourne@btopenworld.com wrote:
> 
> > -1 (minus one)
> > (caveat: I am going on holiday and so may not be able to argue my case, 
> > SO...IF this is a blocking vote AND I am the only -1 AND at least 5  1's 
> > are received in favour THEN please treat this as a non-blocking -0)
> >
> > Reasoning for -1:
> > I believe that promotion to commons proper should only happen when a 
> > sandbox project is close to release. Commons proper represents successful 
> > projects, and I define success by a release. [attributes] is not yet in 
> > that state.
> >
> > However, there is a clear need for more developers and work, and 
> > volunteers appear to exist.
> >
> > In fact, the issue with both [attributes] and [math] is an unwillingness 
> > to let new committers in to work just in the sandbox. I propose that the 
> > commons charter needs to be changed to allow this.
> >
> > To prevent 'sourceforgization' of the sandbox, I propose that
> > - there must be at least one existing Apache committer on a sandbox 
> > project
> > - non-Apache people cannot create a new sandbox component, an Apache 
> > committer must create it first
> > - all commons must vote on accepting a new committer
> >
> > (I am back on Tue 17th. It is unlikely I will reply on this topic before 
> > then. Sorry!)
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >>  from:    James Strachan <james_strachan@yahoo.co.uk>
> >>  date:    Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:30:55
> >>  to:      commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> >>  subject: Re: [VOTE] promote commons attributes to the commons proper
> >>
> >> So that we can add some more committers to the commons-attributes
> >> projects to help unify the various attribute-replated projects out
> >> there (initially commons-attributes and Nanning but maybe eventually
> >> attrib4j too) I'd like to propose we promote commons-attributes to the
> >> commons proper. Then we can work on merging the code bases and patches
> >> and working towards an alpha release.
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Vote:  Promote commons-attributes to commons proper
> >> [ ]  1 I am in favor of the move, and will help support it
> >> [ ]  0 I am in favor of the move, but am unable to help support it
> >> [ ] -0 I am not in favor of the move
> >> [ ] -1 I am against this proposal (must include a reason).
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> James
> >> -------
> >> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


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


Mime
View raw message