On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Kevan Miller<kevan.mil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps could have been handled differently. However, in the end, I much > prefer holding a public discussion rather than over a private@ list. Well, the leads to the sense of "exclusion" instead of "inclusion" which we very much prefer. > Hoping we can move the conversation forward... I don't know the technical status of this, but I can't for my life see that it should pose a problem for Aries if the OSGi spec implementations are going under the Felix hood. That would make Richard happy, and if that there is entangled code where some bits definitely should end up in the spec impl part, then ask Felix committers to stop demanding and come in and help do the separation. If they are not available to do so (for whatever reason), then you have the right to tell them to shut up on the basis of "He who does, decides." and you guys have done your part. All this can happen while in incubation, and again, if Felix guys think that they don't have the time, the energy or just "why should we...", then the issue is in my book solved by default. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
