Rahul, Christian, Thank you for you advice.
Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > * I understand its convenient to attach one zip, but it makes it a little > harder to review > I usually use patch files but since many files are impacted (not counting those generated by javacc), I thought it would be more convenient; dropping the zip over a trunk & use an IDE to check the modifications is easier than resolving conflicts. :-) Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > (ideally, there'd be multiple changesets, one for each feature -- see if > some such is possible,... > I understand; however, the invested effort to create each issue & create/apply/verify each patch versus a bigger one is related to the probability that they may be looked at (catch 22). I originally hoped for JEXL-55 to generate some comments at least from the functional description... :-( Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > ...that may increase that chance that someone looks at it). > Which is exactly my initial worry; since there hasn't been any activity for a long time on JEXL , I can't but wonder what that probability is! :-) I do understand that for a contribution to be looked at, it must intersect one committer's interest; no-one wants to spend 2 hours reviewing a heavy patch to a project just for the fun of it. And as a contributor, I've no interest in posting patches that will sit forever... Is there still any committer interested in releasing JEXL 2.0? Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > * I'd also recommend filing an ICLA ... > Faxed it today just in case. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-JEXL-an-active-project---tp23742386p23764853.html Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
