on 2002/12/15 6:26 PM, "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
>
>> on 2002/12/15 3:58 PM, "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> With some reflection, another alternative is that when a project becomes
>>> dependent on a CVS HEAD of an unreleased proejct, or even a HEAD of a
>>> released project, they make sure that someone documents this in the
>>> STATUS.html.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>
>> #1. Years and years ago, this file was originally created by me based on
>> some source from Jserv and put into the Turbine source code. No one bothered
>> to get in touch with me to say that they were going to get rid of it from
>> CVS and replace it with 10 more classes in a different package.
>
> No code ownership. Given Apache's current structure, I can see that
> committers like us should be asking Apache members for permission to do
> such thigns as we don't own the code, but I didn't think Apache subscribed
> to the notion of code ownership.
It is not a matter of code ownership. It is a matter of respect.
> I still disagree. If an unreleased component dies because another
> unreleased component, I see no problem. And if that previous unreleased
> component is only noticed as a change due to gump reporting it, then it
> might be better off dead. If however it notices because the active
> developer working on it notices, then that's all well and good. The code
> hasn't gone anywhere, it's still in CVS etc.
Just because the code hasn't had any changes in a long time doesn't mean it
is dead or not active. It could be functionally complete.
> I believe this is a problem with the Commons charter and beliefs in how
> Commons should work that don't seem workable. Developers should be able to
> focus on creating a component that is as good as possible in its own
> independent state.
EXACTLY! The file there was as good as it needed to be. It was independent
and wasn't changing. Then someone comes in and screws all that up.
> The other solution in which people dump common code
> into a commons project and then forget about it until something goes wrong
> just doesn't seem to work.
That is what is also happening.
> Given the two very real choices between a code graveyard and a moving
> target, I'd choose the moving target. Yes I'd prefer a perfect project,
> but I like to deal in solutions that work with reality.
Now you have gone into ranting about whatever. The fact of the matter is
that someone broke commons-email by removing code instead of deprecating it.
-jon
--
StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco
http://studioz.tv/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
