Referring to: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Empire-dbProposal
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> I find this alarming: when there are no new challenges awaiting the
> project, why join Apache? The code is stable and mature, you can just
> leave it at sf.net. There doesn't seem to be a plan other than "
Referring to: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Empire-dbProposal
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> I find this alarming: when there are no new challenges awaiting the
> project, why join Apache? The code is stable and mature, you can just
> leave it at sf.net. There doesn't seem to be a plan other than "
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Rainer Döbele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the current community's needs Empire-db is already quite mature hence
> there has not been a lot of demand for new features or bug-fixes recently.
> This may change with a larger community which is what we're looking f
On 23/06/2008, Rainer Döbele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> >> Inexperience with Open Source:
> >> Empire-db has been Open Source from its start in 2001, but it has only
> >> been publicly available since January 2008.
> >
> >This is odd to say the least, and
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> Inexperience with Open Source:
>> Empire-db has been Open Source from its start in 2001, but it has only
>> been publicly available since January 2008.
>
>This is odd to say the least, and from the empire-db.org [1] website I
>find this quote:
>
>"In summer 200
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Inexperience with Open Source:
> Empire-db has been Open Source from its start in 2001, but it has only
> been publicly available since January 2008.
This is odd to say the least, and from the empire-db.
