On Sep 30, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Monday 29 September 2008 12:08:52 pm Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 26, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Agreed. We've done this before and i bring it up yet again :)
Geronimo PMC used Yoko, Yoko failed, they ended up absorbing most
of
the code.
I wouldn't call Yoko *failed*. It didn't generate enough interest to
go TLP, but did become a sub-project of Geronimo. Also, portions
were
donated to CXF. Seems like a *success* to me.
I have to agree. All parts of the Yoko codebase are now supported
and
enhanced in active projects. That sounds like a success, not a
failure.
So, there is a subproject in Geronimo which is essentially the Yoko
codebase, released in a way so non-Geronimo users can consume that
codebase?? If so, Excellent.
Yes. That's correct. The Yoko ORB is a Geronimo subproject. Yoko
committers were adopted into Geronimo. Yoko is released separately and
is being consumed by other projects (i.e. Apache Harmony).
But the matter of fact is, that the
STATUS page says "dissolved, with parts going to Geronimo and CXF",
which implies a different story, and indeed says "Yoko didn't make
it.", i.e. failure. Please call it for what it is, it IS Ok for
podlings to end, dissolve, absorbed, evaporate and whatever other
possible end-of-life we can imagine... Just because a podling fails,
it doesn't mean that any particular person or group of persons fail.
Two different things.
I wasn't involved with the wording of the Yoko status page, nor with
the resolution as they left incubator. Not familiar with why it was
worded in the way they were...
I don't think we need to debate semantics, here. I think we're
largely in agreement. We're debating shades of grey, here... IMO,
"fail" is harsh description of the outcome.
--kevan
