directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brett Porter" <brett.por...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Shall we move this into new structure?
Date Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:51:36 GMT
I had this flagged to follow up from some time ago.

Did we ever get a response from Tomcat as to whether they'd want
naming as a dependency?

- Brett

On 09/01/06, Brett Porter <brett.porter@gmail.com> wrote:
> It really depends on what Tomcat says. If they want to use the code,
> that's great. If they want to take patches such that we can update to
> make it a dependency, that's fine too. If they don't respond at all
> again, it doesn't give me a lot of hope that patches will be applied
> in a timely manner either - but that's an entirely different problem
> :)
>
> I still think it is very useful and could be a lot better (for
> instance, not silently swallowing important exceptions, IIRC).
> However, I'm not using it anymore, and unless I find an excuse to I'm
> unlikely to have a lot of time to do anything with it unfortunately.
>
> I don't think it should be archived - if it ends up that it stays here
> then it would be good to give it a scrub and 1.0 release and see if
> anyone picks up on it. It is useful, so there's a good chance of that.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 1/8/06, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry - I have been having some "technical difficulties" this week.
> >
> > I am still on the fence re jar dependency on tomcat naming,
> > maintaining the full source or letting it go dormant.  I am still
> > interested in others' ideas on this.  I am willing to do the work to
> > refactor for the first option and move to m2, but would also happlily
> > review and apply patches from others who may be interested in getting
> > involved in [naming].  If there is no community or user interest in
> > pushing forward, I am also happy to archive and move on to other
> > things...
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > On 1/7/06, Brett Porter <brett.porter@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's structure is already as desired multiproject wise. Since it has a
> > > separate release cycle, I think its best to keep it under a separate
> > > trunk.
> > >
> > > Phil made a couple of nice extensions to the build like aggregated
> > > javadoc that we haven't done for the m2 javadoc plugin yet. Might need
> > > to get those in order before converting.
> > >
> > > Either way, we really need to find out where it is going with regards
> > > to the discussion the other day before doing anything.
> > >
> > > - Brett
> > >
> > > On 1/8/06, Alex Karasulu <aok123@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Anyone going to maven2ify it? I can move it into the new structure if
> > > > you guys like?
> > > >
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org
"Better Builds with Maven" book - http://library.mergere.com/

Mime
View raw message