there have been cases before where competing projects were submitted to the
foundation - the most prominent one being the JSR-220 and Dali projects that
both wanted to deliver an EJB 3.0 persistence environment (submitted by Versant
and Oracle, respectively).
After letting this go on for a while the foundation leaders got together with
the project managers (over a beer or two?) and talked them into joining forces.
I suspect that would happen with the subversion tooling, too.
Of course, the EJB3 example also shows that delivery of the end result can be
seriously delayed when projects have to merge that are as far advanced as these
were.
christian
Zitat von Mark Phippard <markp@softlanding.com>:
> Subclipse has made it known to the Eclipse Foundation that we also intend
> to submit a project proposal. The proposal is being worked on over on the
> dev@ list. I do not know what they will do with two competing proposals,
> but the Subversive proposal has a major problem in that it depends on
> JavaSVN which is not EPL licensed and will not be unless they purchase it
> from TMate. It has always been our intent to someday attempt to move this
> project over to Eclipse, we simply decided that we owed it to our users to
> get the product to a stable 1.x status before taking the time to do so.
> With a very solid 1.0 release out as well as an exciting 1.2 release on
> the horizon that exploits new Eclipse 3.2 features, now is a good time for
> us to start this process.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subclipse.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subclipse.tigris.org
>
>
------------------
Christian Sell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subclipse.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 4 15:34:07 2006