On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 08:34 AM, Peter Donald wrote:
So whatever way you cut it you are setting Avalon up for a fall because code
means nothing without community and in this environment there is little
chance of community.
i see chance, but i am an optimist. its not going to be easy though.
- how long have we needed to move to maven for our builds. I know of at leastI'd love to. Maven's (alleged) speed problems worry me a bit but I know that is under active scrutinization by the Maven team. I thought jason van zyl volunteered at some point to set us up with a sample Maven build? did that not happen for political reasons, or is jason just (understandably) busy?
three different committers who have expressed a desire to move towards it but
are reluctent to propose it because they will be jumped on by Nicola. Sure it
would be in Avalons best interests to upgrade (at least excalibur/scratchpad)
to maven but it wouldn't be in centipedes best interest and thus ...
- look to how Stefano acts like a tool everytime someone mentions anakia ormudslinging. unless you can provide references. but even then, it may be perception of his words in email, and a reading into the tone and such which is not conveyed well at all with straight ascii.
says Cocoon is not the brightest star in the sky.
- look at conflict between info/meta. Info is technically a far better choiceSuch a block would be unsustainable since it would not have technical merit. i have not looked at both in depth to say "info is technically a far better choice", but that phrase could be deemed FUD by someone that disagreed.
but there is little chance of going wit it without massive conflict/FUD.
There are two people who have said to me that they will block it regardless
of technical merit (and neither was Stephen).
i think we will need a feature matrix comparing info/meta in order to resolve that conflict at the technical level.
Many committers seem to think that consensus == majority vote which is not a view I hold.
i agree with you consensus != majority. not by a long shot.
Personally I think that *all* decisions should require the consensus of *all*I disagree there. not *all*. *most* though.
committers.
some things such as the "separate cvs repo for avalon5".. its basically a "why vs why not" argument. in the end, its just another CVS repo that holds code. i'm sure we all have many CVS trees on our drive. its just a directory in a filesystem. big whoop.
technical and political decisions should require consensus. silly admin things, most would probably be fine with a majority vote.
We have always gone out of our way to allow and encourage experimentation and+1
except for more recent times there has never been code ownership for these
experiments because it was always assumed that the group "owned" the code.
And the experiments always assumed that if successful they would be
reintegrated or built upon or whatever. When new people start to associate
these experiments with so heavily negative concepts (aka forks and code
ownership) does that not indicate to you that there is problems.
Removing all one man code bases would effectively fix the problem in many
ways. If you have a better idea then please share.
it all comes down to intent. am i forking because i want to show the community something new without disturbing the mainline, or am i forking because joe schmoe is an ass and i think he sucks.
big difference.
-pete
--
peter royal -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
