On Jan 19, 2006, at 12:36 AM, Raphaël Luta wrote:
We're doing loops here. My point in this thread is that initial code quality does matter in a code grant incubation because it is often burdened by backward compatibility with existing applications and thus major restructure may require a revolution which can hardly safely happen in the early months of the project open-source life.
And all those points are wrong. There is no burden of backward compatibility because it must be an entirely new product -- all of the names change anyway. A major restructure is a good idea; that is, after all, why we founded Apache as a project to replace NCSA httpd 1.3R, which was replaced by Shambhala within 6 months. And it certainly doesn't have to happen "safely" -- the project is going to be shooting for TLP status, which means about a year or more under incubation before it can even do real releases, and the more hard decisions the group has to make (in public), the better they will learn how to collaborate. Honestly, once the name is changed to something neutral like Kabuki, none of your objections make any sense. Especially the ones about code quality, since most of our projects started with code that needed a serious re-arch almost immediately. I would love to see three or four different ajax toolkits under the ASF, each with its own architectural focus, and let them compete for developers, but we can only approve one podling at a time. Meanwhile, I do think that any proposal to the Incubator needs at least three active Apache committers involved, preferably members that are willing to do infrastructure tasks. Incubator podlings are seriously infrastructure dependent and the existing volunteers are already tapped-out. ....Roy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
