commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <>
Subject Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in sandbox - Take2
Date Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:27:33 GMT

On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
>> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> Hi Rahul,
>>> thanks once again for the wise suggestions, much more than appreciated!
>>> I underestimated the importance of the users over the active
>>> developers, so I totally agree with you, moving to dormant is
>>> premature.
>>> I was aware about breaking APIs compatibility, since we had to face
>>> the same problem also in [pool2], I thought it would have been a good
>>> idea implementing the sandbox in the o.a.c.digester3[1] package, looks
>>> like it is compliant to the suggestions you proposed.
>>> I like your idea of branching 1.X, 2.X and put 3 on trunk, shall we
>>> call a vote before going on?
>> +1
>> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make
sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
> <snip/>
> Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say
> this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally
> require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a
> bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and
> somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0.

I hesitate to throw in an opinion as I've never really used digester, but I quite like the
API personally, and would +1 this.


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

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

View raw message