Stefano Bagnara wrote:
On 8/1/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this is a classic case of evolution verses revolution
you wanted a revolution but ended up evolving the existing code base.
architecture by stealth typically creates community issues and so is
best avoided.
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
+1
Thanks, Robert. Great post!
Bernd, can you just tell me if the +1 was also specific to the sentence
above? (as a specific reference to what I did in the last 2 years in
JAMES Server).
No it wasn't.
I think Robert's analysis to be correct and unbiased. I now believe to
understand what went wrong and why and how it can be avoided.
I don't read the sentence you picked up as personal criticism of anyone.
Generally speaking, looking into the past is only useful when learning
for the future.
The modularisation in fact opens the possibility for everyone to be
represented here in source code - the conservative, the evolutionary and
even the revolutionary - the fast and the slow - the pro-compatibility
and the con-compatibility.
It's a technical trick to unsnare - to allow for people with different
goals to participate (or to not participate, in the sense of not to
block progress). It works for the moment, at least.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
