On 2012-07-07 21:12 , David Karger wrote:
On 7/7/2012 2:01 AM, Ryan Lee wrote:
On 2012-07-03 13:02 , David Karger wrote:
This discussion thread has been silent since March, and I would really
like to bring it to some resolution.
To recap, I posted (at http://trunk.simile-widgets.org/) a proposed
release of exhibit 2.3 with various bug fixes and feature additions.
Concerns were raised that it was inappropriate to add features as this
would make it harder for e3 to achieve feature parity/compatibility. I
accepted this argument and formulated a proposal to exclude the
egregious feature additions from the release while including those bug
fixes I considered important. I've quoted that specific proposal
below.
The discussion then branched into the broader topic of how to manage the
commit process, with stefano helpfully posting the proposed change for
review at http://codereview.appspot.com/5673046/ . But nobody has
contributed to that review, and several months ago the discussion ground
to a halt and nothing has happened since. I consider this a bad
outcome.
From what I recall, I ended up hearing about this when I was added to
the cc list in the middle of an ongoing conversation. It seemed to me
you switched pursuing this topic to an entirely different list; are you
sure you reached the appropriate audience? It doesn't seem as helpful
to your goals to start a discussion here, then propose its resolution
elsewhere.
If you look back to the proposed resolution I quoted here, it was
originally posted on this same mailing list on february 9.
I'm referring to the actual practical resolution of putting up the code
to review. I'm well aware of the mail you've sent to this
list; I find it an odd choice that when you were actually pursuing a
concrete path forward, it was announced to a different one.
So, can anyone who cares weigh in? If nobody does, I guess that's a
sign that I'm free to make the decision on my own....
I don't see how not receiving any participation could be perceived as a
community endorsement to resolve this however you want on your own. It
seems rather the opposite.
All I've heard here is that time has passed with no further community
input, which leaves me where we began.
No further community input on the proposed release, right.
Like I said, that's kind of a big sign you shouldn't just dismiss. My
point about the code review announcement is that there may be other
reasons you haven't heard anything further on it.
On the other
hand, I've certainly seen "community input" in the form of complaints
that the painter is down, or something doesn't work in IE8, or that an
xml importer is desired, etc. It was that input that drove much of
what I wrote.
That's fantastic and an attitude and behavior I'm fully behind - but
it's not the topic at hand. Great intentions do not set the boundaries
for releases.
I'd be quite happy to see a
2.2.1 bugfix-only release to meet the needs of current Exhibit 2 users;
I think it's important for that class of users to know they're being
watched out for.
Yes, I have acquiesced to the objective of a bugfix release. I don't
care if it's called 2.3 or 2.2.1. The point of my proposal was to try
to define what constitutes bug fixes.
That's what the code review is for, no?
As noted above, I think your initial steps in this direction were
insufficient. Make a proper announcement of the review to this list,
point to the URL, let's agree upon a reasonable deadline. I'll commit
to taking some time to enter into the process. I hope others will as well.
Thus my proposal was to push out the changes that
1. replace the buggy html importer with one that actually works
2. address the bug that map-view stops working when painter is down, by
switching to canvas (granted, if I had predicted the demand for
bugfix-only I wouldn't have switched to gmaps v3 at the same time, but I
still would like to push out the fix).
3. fix the bug of unstable table sorting
4. fix the bug of referring to simile.mit.edu (which is unreliable) in
simileAjax
5. "fix" bugs in old jquery by replacing with new jquery
Then comes the grey area. Is it a bug for exhibit to fail if someone
forgets a label? I think so, and want to include the feature that
generates labels for items without them. Adding a csv importer isn't a
bug fix, but has been a requested feature. It is entirely independent
of other code, so would it matter? Ditto for inline import of data.
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/800px.jpg"](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/800px.jpg"){kind=link}
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/800px1.jpg?maxheight=25&mode=fillcrop&maxwidth=25"](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/800px1.jpg?maxheight=25&mode=fillcrop&maxwidth=25"){kind=link}