Glad you guys seem to have had some productive chat @apachecon. Sorry I had to miss it this year, its the easter holidays and I went to Aviemore with the family. Loads of snow on the ski slopes, which is unusual for the time of year. http://www.cairngormmountain.org.uk/web-cam
However to get to the point... my comments are below: > >some looks ok, some looks questionable but i'm > > not enough of an expert to judge. Oh I'm sure you're probably being modest. I think that much of the diff between 2.x branch and trunk suffers from not being tested enough, and not having been subjected to the level of scrutiny which it might have received in more active projects. Which means my opinion is that the trunk isn't fit to release, but it may contain code worth "working up" into production quality. > > 2. i want people to innovate on trunk rather than on their own > > branches. This is a worthwhile goal, but has resulted in the lack of quality assurance which blights the trunk. We need to make a clear statement about the purpose and nature of the trunk. We also need to work out how we avoid a situation where the delta between branch and trunk continues to grow until they are too different to manage. Perhaps we are already at that point. > > IMHO modularisation is an inevitable consequence of > > this approach. I've long said that modularisation is absolutely, fundamentally, totally and utterly essential to the survival of the project. James server is too complex to get your head round all of it in one go, which dissuades people from casual participation, or put another way James requires a significant commitment from contributors just to understand what to change. The shame is that I believe that we loose valuable contributions because of this overhead. > > noel prefers to see this process as allowing anyone to > > dump junk in trunk and i have no probably about that language but > > that's not the way i see things. Nor I, but Noel, as you say, is prone to talking in soundbites and likes to make a drama out of a crisis. I have no problem with people throwing stones into the pond to see what floats to the surface, but I think the truth here is that we need to establish an environment where there is a low cost for people to innovate James, and the higher cost is associated with taking those ideas into production. We lack any notion of degrees of quality assurance, and we lack a lifecycle which allows changes to be promoted up the quality scale. I think we need somewhere to dump junk, a way to pan the junk for nuggets, and a clear path to "release" for chosen changes. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
