Hi,
I'm actually +1 to more or less everything Costin said ;)
Yoav
On 1/6/06, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/27/05, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My own views in line.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > Mark Thomas wrote:
> > > Jacob Hookom wrote:
> > >
> > >>I'd like to get th
On 12/27/05, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My own views in line.
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Thomas wrote:
> > Jacob Hookom wrote:
> >
> >>I'd like to get the ball rolling on a branch for JSP 2.1.
> >
> > I can get the SVN stuff set up over the next few days. There has been
> > some debate about h
- do we maintain servletapi for 6.0?
No for the api stuff proper. We don't host it, can't change it and our
own implementation would be more trouble than it is worth.
Maybe for the examples. It is useful to be able to fix problems with
them. The examples could always be merged in with the co
Mark Thomas wrote:
The key questions are:
- does 6.0.x become the main development branch?
Yes. We did this for 5.5.x and it worked.
Ok.
- do we merge jasper and container?
No. Good to keep them independent.
Ok.
- do we merge build and container
Maybe. If someone wants to take the t
My own views in line.
Mark
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Jacob Hookom wrote:
>
>>I'd like to get the ball rolling on a branch for JSP 2.1.
>
> I can get the SVN stuff set up over the next few days. There has been
> some debate about how we arrange things so we need to get agreement on
> the way forward.
Jacob Hookom wrote:
> I'd like to get the ball rolling on a branch for JSP 2.1. I also have a
> new EL implementation that I would like to roll in as a replacement to
> the Commons-EL implementation. There's also the API modifications for
> JSP and the EL-API.
>
> Along the lines of project/fold
