OK. Thanks for clarifying. Carry on. :-) On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Chris Bartlett wrote:
> Greg, > > Understood, and I think we are in general agreement, but things have > gone off topic a little. > > Hopefully you understand I am not proposing to fork anything merely > for the sake of it. Any decision to a fork would only come about > after the collaboration process 'rejected' the proposal, but when the > functionality might yet benefit (a potentially small number) of > others. If nobody cares about it, then it will remain in my private > library. If someone cares, and I have time, I am happy to make it > public. > > I originally asked if anyone was interested in the idea, but didn't > attempt to force it upon anyone. I personally see value in the > flexibility, functionality and simplicity of it (subjective terms, > obviously) and was simply asking if anyone else could find a use for > it. My feelings won't be hurt if the reception is just 'the sound of > crickets, and tumbleweeds rolling by!' :) > > If I do proceed with this publicly in any way, its purpose, future > goals, dangers, possibilities etc will all be prominently stated. As > will the fact that it is based upon the sterling work of the Pivot > contributors. It would never be presented as anything other than a > way to process BXML slightly differently, from the 'official' way. > > However, even saying that makes it sound like a much bigger deal than > anything I envisioned. I was thinking of < 10 core classes bundled > into a jar and potentially lots of reuseable 'Transformable' > implementations hosted somewhere. Certainly not a move to steal > Pivot's thunder in any way. > > Chris > > > On 9 July 2011 01:21, Greg Brown <gk_br...@verizon.net> wrote: >> By the way, I don't mean to be preachy - I'm just saying that, if you think >> you have a good idea, then put it out there and let it get tossed around a >> bit. From my experience, that's the best way to reach a solution that >> everyone is happy with. >> >> On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Greg Brown wrote: >> >>> What I'm trying to say is that, even though collaboration may be difficult >>> at times, it generally produces a better result than the efforts of >>> multiple individuals working independently. Just because I may not agree >>> with all aspects of a change you propose (or vice versa) does not mean that >>> I don't see any value in it. By discussing a proposed change in the open, >>> that value can generally be drawn out. In my opinion, choosing to fork >>> rather than collaborate is simply counter to the spirit of the ASF. >>> >>> G >>> >> >>
