On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That would then still require a sandbox promotion VOTE and I see no > reason to fuss with moving svn and the site to the sandbox just to > revive something. The idea in the proposal is you just go back to > hacking on the revived zombie in commons proper svn. The only > material change is the site and JIRA disclaimers are removed. >
The reason that I suggested the sandbox (again this illustrates how I think differently than most folks here :) is because a project has been deemed "dormant" for a reason. Either it doesn't have an active community around it anymore or it's just obsolete. Reviving it to the sandbox would be kind of like putting it through the "incubator." In order to put out a release, we need to first make sure it's a "healthy" project and it's something we want to take on and support/maintain. I guess the only special case for this would be when we have some sort of critical vulnerability (security?) issue that needs to be addressed immediately. My idea would take a minimum of 6 days (72-hour vote cycle x2) turn-around, which may be unacceptable. Heck, even the 36-hour turn-around required for a "proper" release vote might be unacceptable to some folks. Of course, folks can build their own versions and use them. This is open source, after all. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
