On 09/11/2008, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jochen Wiedmann > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > For example, one of the reasons people don't want to bring things to > > Commons > > > any more is because they have to buy in to the entire Commons enchilada. > > > Consistent build systems, consistent web sites, consistent release > > criteria, > > > and so on. This consistency is crucial when Commons is being promoted to > > the > > > "outside world", because it allows consumers to understand what they will > > > see / get from any given component. I believe it's a big part of what has > > > made Commons a "brand" in and of itself, and for Commons as an > > > externally-facing project, it's definitely a Good Thing (tm). > > > > I don't agree with that. IMO, it's gross how much a commons > > subproject is influenced by others. I'd clearly prefer if the subprojects > > were > > completely driven by those who actually do the subprojects work. > > > > But that's exactly my point. If you're a (prospective) Commons developer, > you quite likely don't want to have to buy into the whole Commons enchilada, > and would likely prefer to just get on and do things your own way. However, > if you're someone looking to consume Commons within an enterprise (which is > part of what I meant by the "outside world"), that consistency across all > Commons components is a great benefit, because once you understand how one > of them works, you understand how they all work (within reason, of course).
It's also a lot easier for committers to work on multiple commons projects if the components all do things in the same way. And it probably helps with PMC oversight too. > -- > Martin Cooper > > > > Jochen > > > > > > -- > > I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my > > telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out > > how to use my telephone. > > > > -- (Bjarne Stroustrup, > > > http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#really-say-that<http://www.research.att.com/%7Ebs/bs_faq.html#really-say-that> > > > My guess: Nokia E50) > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
