On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 18:34, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > on 4/4/02 2:52 PM, "Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > They are not using CVS for their distribution mechanism > > and I would be curious as to know why as they obviously have a model > > that works. > > I believe that CPAN is release oriented so they don't need to do that.
Exactly. They must have just as much development going on as us. I think they just have a better process. > Jakarta development tends to be CVS HEAD oriented because most people doing > development try to keep CVS HEAD relatively stable. I think you should qualify that. I don't think Jakarta is like that generally. I think we are like that generally. We should probably make a lot more point releases is what we should really do. > Gump also attempts to > enforce that practice. Also, Jakarta development tends to be more bleeding > edge and with so many components depending on specific features in so many > other components, it tends to make sense to use CVS HEAD. Again, I don't believe this is true. Struts is very stable, and they have made a lot of changes recently but are still almost 100% backward compatible if not 100% backward compatible. They added subabbs and a plugin mechansism, wide sweeping changes, and managed to stay compatable. Clients did not need to use many dev snapshots or nightlies. I think for the most part Struts users survive with releases quite well. > I also like bucking the age old development trend of using only released > software. :-) I believe that coding around released software bugs or adding > features in a local package instead of a general package is worse than > simply fixing the bug or adding the feature and updating the jar. You and I have always worked from HEAD because of the disparity between releases and what we are working on. I think if we worked a bit harder to make point releases every few weeks the situation would be a lot different. You should be able to build from CVS and I have no qualms with you there, but the way we work is different than most. I think we can agree on that. Not everyone is interested in the bleeding edge but for the most part would be very content with a well padded edge. I also don't think something like Turbine should evolve constantly. I think core will pretty much be complete when t3 is done. A small core that accepts keyed components. When you release Scarab how interested do you think you're really going to be in radically changing it? I don't think the bleeding edge will be very interesting when the tidal wave of bitching from your users start. With Tambora we have to fight tooth and nail to get our users to change anything and though I'm not entirely happy with t2 I'm glad it's not changing constantly. I'm hoping that the innovation in the core of turbine will soon come to an end and that the cool stuff happens in the components. I am definitely taking into consideration what you've said, but I really think that most people are not interested in using things from CVS and want those comfortable releases and we have to work harder to make more of them. > -jon > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
