Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:50:45PM +0200, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 13:37, Peter Donald wrote:
>>
>>>Forks are fine and healthy. Forced adoptions of untested code is never a good
>>>idea and has always resulted in crapola that we later regret and spend a year
>>>deprecating and replacing.
>>
>>very true. I am quite okay with the current divergence of efforts into
>>multiple forks. What I am very concerned about are statements that seem
>>to indicate there will not be convergence later, or that it will be
>>impossible.
> Then the losers will have a choice of emulating the winners, or dying a
> natural death of disuse. You're right, it's easier to predict the winner
> of a one-horse race. My point is that if we end up having multiple
> horses, that is not a bad thing so long as users have enough information
> to be able to choose.
I think you guys are nuts.
This is *a* project.
It has *one* codebase.
Ok, I am wrong, it's a sub-project, the project is Jakarta. :-P
Anyone can make dev forks, called branches.
Then a vote can be called to make the switch.
By parallelizing forks and giving them product dignity we are doing a mess.
I'll go on with the reorganization of the codebase, to unify what
shouldn't have disgregated from the start.
And Jeff, just to make it clear, there are no losers and winners here.
In a community, we all win.
Whoever buys the winner-loser paradigm loses.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
