On 17 Oct 2013, at 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 10/17/13 5:52 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >> On 17 Oct 2013, at 2:39, Henri Yandell wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 16 October 2013 12:25, Christian Grobmeier >>>> <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> If nobody is willing to put a component to "dormant" state, >>>>> then the >>>>> label doesn't make any sense. I would vote to remove the >>>>> dormant state in >>>>> general. >>>>> If we don't have any need of a specific component we can put it to >>>>> attic.apache.org too. >>>>> No need to duplicate things. >>>> >>>> AFAIK, the Attic is for entire TLPs only, not individual >>>> components. >>> >>> >>> There are XML subcomponents there. >>> >>> Jakarta ones went dormant iirc, but then moved over as >>> subcomponents and >>> not the overall umbrella. So I don't think there's a reason why a >>> Commons >>> component wouldn't fit. >> >> +1 >> >> The attic is not only for TLPs. >> I don't find the mail reference right now. But I was asked to put >> log4cxx to the attic (sub component of Apache Logging). > > I think the "dormant" classification in Commons, should we decide to > keep it (and I agree we should either agree to keep it and get it > defined and updated or dump it) does not have to be the same as > "retirement to the Attic." I proposed above that we this just be a > designation based on lack of current "committed committers" and > things could go in and out of dormancy without any svn (or Git or > whatever) moves, trips through the incubator or other heavyweight > process.
The attic says projects without active committers should move. http://attic.apache.org/ I don't see any reason for a heavyweight process to get a component back. The attic says "recreation of a PMC for a project" is enough. I understand it like we can simply tell them we are working on it again. > Gary and others have pointed out that you might be able to > accomplish the same thing by just keeping team lists up to date, > prominently displaying last release date, etc. on the web site. Sure, we can do that. Still i see no advantage of keeping the "dormant" state. Hopefully we are a little quicker to put a component to sleep in future because a lot of unmaintained components advertised as maintained let us look bad. Cheers > Could be that is the best solution and we just dump the "dormant" > concept altogether. Whatever we decide to do, I agree with Hen that > getting a clear picture of what people are now or working on / > intent RSN to work on is good info to have in deciding among the > alternatives. > > Phil >> >> >> --- >> http://www.grobmeier.de >> @grobmeier >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org --- http://www.grobmeier.de @grobmeier GPG: 0xA5CC90DB --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
