on 12/27/2000 11:40 AM, "Kyle F. Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Since I'm in your "tinkerer" group because I'm following the Catalina path
>> (like we agreed on), I will state that everything in your "conservative"
>> group is just as important to me in the "tinkerer" group.
>>
>> Therefore, your distinct separation of the groups is illogical and moot.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. It's a matter of priority. Stability is more important
> than features to someone going into a production-ready environment, but
> both matter. Perhaps I wasn't clear about that.
Ok, look at the larger picture.
Tomcat 3.1 was out there for a long time and it was crap (I think that
everyone would agree on that one). Thus, we can ignore that one as a
"release" with stability.
Thus, the *only* reason why 3.2 got released was because Craig finally stood
up and did a 3.2 release. Where was Mr. Costin during this time? He was
working on 3.3 before 3.2 was ever released!!!!!!! In fact, people
complained about that at the time as well. Thus, please explain to me how
the "tinkerer" group isn't concerned about stability when the people doing
the releases are from the "tinkerer" group!!!!!!!!!!!
-rw-r--r-- 1 craigmcc jakarta 5283840 Nov 29 18:22 jakarta-tomcat-3.2.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 craigmcc jakarta 2781704 Nov 29 18:09
jakarta-tomcat-3.2.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 craigmcc jakarta 3185249 Nov 29 18:14 jakarta-tomcat-3.2.zip
Again, your point is moot.
>> The rest of this doesn't make any sense because I just stated that your
>> separation of the groups isn't defined correctly.
>>
> I hope I cleared up what I meant.
Nope.
> Of course. And, having done so, I also know that saying ALL things have
> equal priority (i.e. features + performance + stability + lack of bugs +
> latest-and-greatest standards) will never fly. Sooner or later, you make
> trade-offs. My point is that we have two groups interested (with
> representatives in the developers as well as the users) who have
> completely different ideas of those priorities.
My point is that your groups are not delineated correctly if you sit down
and look at the facts.
I will also add that I was the release person for Apache JServ for about 90%
of its life. Given that JServ probably still is the most stable servlet
engine out there in Apache land, you can rest assured that I'm fully in
favor of quality release stable software.
I don't like being categorized like you categorized me.
> All you can do in this situation is a) abandon one group; or b) do the
> best you can, and divide labor to serve both, making sure you don't work
> to counter-purposes by having both projects try to be all things to all
> people. That's all I'm saying.
No it isn't. Your original email was an attempt to classify people's
interests "subject: ...division of labor" and I called you on it as being
totally incorrect.
If what you are saying above is now your new statement, then again, my point
of my original "[MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x" thread is that having a split group
is not conductive towards making quality software and I'm asking that this
be resolved. The PMC meeting will resolve this for good.
> This is slower, yes, I agree with you.
> But since we've heard vocal support for both 3.x and 4.x from that third
> community I didn't mention--the volunteers, who can work on one, the
> other, or nothing if they like--I don't think a) is going to happen. We
> might as well do (b) optimally instead of arguing about the costs of a
> compromise already made.
The *only* group that has a voice here is the people who have commit access.
No one else has a voice. That is how the ASF works, it isn't a democracy.
Please get used to it.
<http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html>
This will get finalized at the PMC meeting I'm sure, but as far as I see it,
we had an agreement within the group that the future would be Catalina and
the compromise hasn't been made yet and I'm calling attention to the fact
that people are ignoring what we decided upon earlier. Therefore, anything
else is simply a fork and should be done elsewhere until we come to a point
where we can re-evaluate what the future is again.
love,
-jon
