On 11/24/2010 03:11 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
If we had started a formal vote, the qualification might indicate that we had not yet done enough discussing. I suggest we continue discussing a little longer, and then call a vote. We will probably be able to reach a consensus proposal that will get a lot of definite positive votes.
I'm aware off the differences between a formal and a informal vote. A informal vote however is a clear indication how one will vote when a formal vote is called.
I can understand you want to go throught due process in determining what we are going to do. But my personal impression from the mailing list archives, is that the river project is completely gridlocked in subtleties. I'm not saying that something agreed has a lifetime of infinity, but we have to start somewhere. That means quick, decisive action, while keeping our options open.
Suppose we declare to support 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and CDC. How do we validate this? I don't see us building a compatibity verification on short notice.
If you want to go for river worlddomination, by keeping everything compatible, you should bring a large suitcase of money. Then you can checkout an older revision from the repo and build something with the horde of programmers you are hiring.
River has to grow from spurts from contributors, we are not going to win a race by creating a swamp. I strongly believe that the current failure of river is because of this longwinding process. We are not going to attract more young eager bright committers if we keep on discussing the future of river or the subtleties of compatibility.
Gr. Sim
