First time I've ever seen it discussed. Was an interesting discussion for a while until I hit the point of: "Okay, go write this up on a webpage so it makes sense. "
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > The Apache Jakarta Law: > > Any discussion regarding Apache Jakarta will eventually degrade into a > discussion about the > Tomcat 3.3/4.0 issue, often including a full re-analysis of the events, > revision of the history, and sometimes degrading into a full > re-enactment of the emotionally charged flamewar that engulfed the > Tomcat project at the time. Often even those who don't often > participate in such "interesting uses of time" will even "match the > judgement logic" necessary to participate in such a conversation. > > I hope one day my Law is proven false. Perhaps if those involved were > to take this on to a wiki and document all about it, the different view > points and lessons learned, opposing lessons learned etc, we could one > day make this law obsolete at least. > > -Andy > > Joe Schaefer wrote: > > >Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >[...] > > > > > > > >>I believe it was a mistake to allow two different > >>codebases to share the same name. > >> > >> > > > >I'm not convinced that "having two codebases" is > >necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here > >seems to have centered around the concerns of the > >existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what > >the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) > >think of the 3.x/4.x division. > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
