Bernd Fondermann wrote:
[...]
There is some truth in this. But Eclipse is driven by companies, it is
like a software company.
We are not this way. That does not mean we aren't successfull, but
this is not an objective opinion either ;-) I am not willing to follow
strict release cycles. But it would be good to have a common
perspective. That's what is still evolving from the mailing list
discussion. It is not simply a thing of voting.
I really agree on the whole paragrapg but the last sentence: I think
that it is ok to use the vote as a pragmatic way to define the limits of
our discussions. I don't like to discuss ages without a conclusion when
I know we could have done both of our different ideas if we simply
discussed less and to end up without anything done. I think I'm able to
work in team but the team works if we agree we have advantages in
working together.
You brought us the biggest new feature in James: Unit tests.
I think that your contribution, in term of code, is what is making me
more happy to be still in James and not working on my own local branch.
Now we have 25% unittest coverage in trunk and this is really a good
step forward if we consider that 1 year ago we had 0%! I always thought
that test was one of the biggest requirements for James but I never had
the willing to start working on it.
This is to say that often it is not the consensus or the friendship that
keep us in a group but simply a concrete reasoning: before you started
providing the unittests I worked *alone* for maybe 6 months and I also
had to fight for my ideas or even few refactorings to be accepted. I
lost much more time than I would have need to do all of this in my local
branch. In fact I still have to commit a lot of things that I developed
2 years ago in my local branch and that I never been able to commit or I
delayed because of major changes needed (ESMTP DSN support as an example
, mass remote delivery service as another example) and if it wasn't for
you and Norman I would have probably "left" the project.
I often had different ideas from you but I think we have to find
compromises if we want to take the advantages of a bigger team.
As an example your first tests used ristretto: i thought that it was not
good to james because of licensing (and maybe other I don't remember
now). I could have said "-1 to commit it, +1 if YOU replace ristretto
with commons-net" and start discussions about why using commons-net over
ristretto and so on.. instead I preferred to work on the commons-net
change and we have been all happy with it.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
