commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <>
Subject Re: [all] BinaryCompatability tester
Date Fri, 07 May 2004 00:21:22 GMT
On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 12:07, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > community rules :)
> >
> > if people are more comfortable with sourceforge (and two are so far, by
> > my count) then that's cool with me.
> >
> > do any (potential) volunteers feel that the sandbox would be better
> > than the sourceforge?
> Will answer the rest of the email after more deliberation, but I'm +1 to
> the sandbox as I find sourceforge to be a huge pain to do releases at, and
> this was before they stopped shell access to the CVS repo.

My thoughts were not so much about the development process, but about
where the application will live when released. Commons is a collections
of libraries; there aren't any "commons applications", and I think one
would feel very out-of-place (and possibly be against the charter).

Maybe it could find a home within the Ant project, as one of its
interfaces will be an Ant task? But that might make it harder to find
for people looking for a stand-alone tool...

I'm also concerned by the number of commit messages likely to flood the
commons list. As a new project, there is likely to be a lot more cvs
commit operations than for a "mature" project. None of it is likely to
be of interest to anyone except the 2 or 3 people actually working on
the project.

As long as people aren't concerned about the CVS commit emails issue, I
guess we could *start* in the sandbox, and deal with these issues nearer
to release time if people wish. That would certainly be the path of
least resistance..

I haven't worked on SourceForge before, so don't know how much pain a
release involves there.



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

View raw message