commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <>
Subject Re: [feedparser] News / Status
Date Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:51:55 GMT
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 18:02 -0500, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 3/2/06, Simon Kitching <> wrote:
> <snip/>
> >
> > We should probably be more careful about what projects are accepted into
> > commons.
> <snap/>
> Agreed, but how do we do that?
> On one hand, its too easy to start a project in Commons, and then have
> the project stall (for a plethora of reasons). OTOH, our charter says
> the sandbox is fairly "open". Needs some objective definition if we're
> going to be selective (such as saying something to the effect of your
> sentence below and then standing firm).

Well, maybe we just should emphasise that it's not a "failure" for a
project to start in the sandbox then move to Sourceforge or similar.

Hopefully projects in the sandbox *do* gather a solid team of developers
who are already apache committers, in which case promotion to proper and
support for real releases isn't a problem. However projects that are a
success technically, but don't gather the necessary community *can* and
*should* move elsewhere rather than be regarded as a "failure".

>>From this point of view, it was the promotion of FeedParser to proper
without the necessary community support that was the only mistake made.
Kevin Burton perhaps thought that commons was Sourceforge under a
different name which it isn't.

>  * IMO, the recent vote for [logging] is not a good example. It
> appears there was confusion about the alpha labeling. I think most of
> us use JCL one way or the other, that single vote may not be a good
> indication of developer/voter/community support.
>  * I'd also like to think that Digester can make a maintenance release
> the next time it comes up. I use it, and I know many others here use
> it too.

I hope so too!



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

View raw message