Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Federico Barbieri wrote:In a perfect world of course. But during development implementing a feature may get in others people way and this is bad.
Paul Hammant wrote:(strong opinion) -0.99
(Vote) -1
two reasons:
first there is been tension and flames, if you force everyone into the same room you'll get more. Let the dust settle first.
second IMHO avalon scope is wide enough to justify more than one implementation (not many but more than one).
I may want to *focus* on performances, scalability, user friendlness, resource usage etc.
Ok, as I tried to express, I agree on having different implementations because of scalability and performance, but not on features.
Moreover some feature are really just experiments and you need to leave some freedom for experimenting.
At last there are cases where you can implement the same feature in different incompatible ways and it's very hard to chose on a technical base. instead of forcing people in endless frustrating discussions just let them go. Hopefully people will be wise, give up their pride and find a compromise.
Microforks are natural and quite productive if they take place with a constructive attitude.
But perhaps it's really better to see the development of the current
implementations grow nad have a look then at what we have.
Carsten
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
