Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list commons-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 27262 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2003 08:25:59 -0000 Received: from uni-sb.de (134.96.252.33) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Jun 2003 08:25:59 -0000 Received: from cs.uni-sb.de (cs.uni-sb.de [134.96.252.31]) by uni-sb.de (8.12.9/2003020700) with ESMTP id h5R8QBGd009713 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:26:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.cs.uni-sb.de (mail.cs.uni-sb.de [134.96.254.200]) by cs.uni-sb.de (8.12.9/2003020700) with ESMTP id h5R8Pxsl010047 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:26:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from activemath.org (klein.ags.uni-sb.de [134.96.236.41]) by mail.cs.uni-sb.de (8.12.9/2003061700) with ESMTP id h5R8P5fR005021 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:25:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: email: Host klein.ags.uni-sb.de [134.96.236.41] claimed to be activemath.org Message-ID: <3EFC1B77.8080102@activemath.org> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:24:55 +0200 From: Paul Libbrecht User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: fr, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakarta Commons Users List Subject: Re: [JELLY] is Jelly still alive? References: <73820E18-A1D2-11D7-B386-000393B61B56@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <73820E18-A1D2-11D7-B386-000393B61B56@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Well, precisely, vitality is my problem. When I first raised the subject (shortly before peter), I was actually based on CVS commits... although there seems to be some tag showing that something was about to move... I see no commits since february and that, to me, is a huge lack of activity... Paul Peter Royal wrote: > On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 12:53 PM, Mark R. Diggory wrote: > >> Because Jelly is primarily a commons subcomponent used in other >> projects, I believe most users are working with the cvs checkout >> directly. > > A new release might be worthwhile though, of that and jexl. Just to > demonstrate vitality :) > -pete