You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@commons.apache.org by "B. W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com> on 2002/10/25 15:24:40 UTC
Re: Pre-proposal for an HTTP Utilities Component
Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org> writes:
> I dunno, but I really would prefer that we just take things and
> evolve as we go. I'm getting awfully tired of dealing with
> (proposed) bureaucracy. I'm so far removed from code right now, I
> want to cry. I really do favor the 'just enough structure to keep us
> from falling apart' in such new endeavors.
I couldn't have said it any better.
-Fitz
Re: Pre-proposal for an HTTP Utilities Component
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: "B. W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>
> > Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org> writes:
> >
> > > I dunno, but I really would prefer that we just take things and
> > > evolve as we go. I'm getting awfully tired of dealing with
> > > (proposed) bureaucracy. I'm so far removed from code right now, I
> > > want to cry. I really do favor the 'just enough structure to keep us
> > > from falling apart' in such new endeavors.
> >
> > I couldn't have said it any better.
>
> IMO, the discussion about what mailing lists to create etc. is based on an
> assumption that j-c will move into a-c. Thus, since j-c committers already
> know the good and bad parts of one mailing list/shared karma etc. we are
> discussing whether what we currently have in j-c is optimal.
That's a good point. No matter what is decided, if commons-httpclient
moves in here to put it back on a shared mail list would be folly.
Hen
Re: Pre-proposal for an HTTP Utilities Component
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
From: "B. W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>
> Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org> writes:
>
> > I dunno, but I really would prefer that we just take things and
> > evolve as we go. I'm getting awfully tired of dealing with
> > (proposed) bureaucracy. I'm so far removed from code right now, I
> > want to cry. I really do favor the 'just enough structure to keep us
> > from falling apart' in such new endeavors.
>
> I couldn't have said it any better.
IMO, the discussion about what mailing lists to create etc. is based on an
assumption that j-c will move into a-c. Thus, since j-c committers already
know the good and bad parts of one mailing list/shared karma etc. we are
discussing whether what we currently have in j-c is optimal.
If a-c was starting empty, I might agree with the bureaucracy comment, but I
think that if it can't attract j-c it really isn't succeeding.
Stephen
RE: Pre-proposal for an HTTP Utilities Component
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: fitz@red-bean.com [mailto:fitz@red-bean.com]
> Sent: 25 October 2002 15:25
> Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org> writes:
>
> > I dunno, but I really would prefer that we just take things and
> > evolve as we go. I'm getting awfully tired of dealing with
> > (proposed) bureaucracy. I'm so far removed from code right now, I
> > want to cry. I really do favor the 'just enough structure to keep us
> > from falling apart' in such new endeavors.
>
> I couldn't have said it any better.
+1
Sander