Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Ant
I'm disappointed that you have chosen this path. I will ask one more
time if you and Sebastien would consider collaborating with those of us
working on core2.
A while ago, I agreed to be a mentor for this project. I guess it is
about time that I start acting like one.
If this project ever hopes to exit incubation, it had better start
acting like an ASF project. For starters, I suggest that all committers
read the Rules for Revolutionaries[1][2][3].
For those who want the Cliff notes version: anybody who wants to work in
an evolutionary fashion on the main trunk is welcome to do so. Anybody
who wants to work on a revolutionary branch is welcome to do so.
Multiple concurrent revolutionary branches are OK too.
One thing that is decidedly NOT OK is to include a version number in the
name, as it causes friction. Hence, I'd suggest that "core2"
immediately get renamed to something that neither reflects the term
"core" or the number "2".
Something implicit in the R4R document is that the burden of proof is on
the revolutionaries. If you would like to see your particular branch
merged back onto the trunk, be prepared to demonstrate why your
particular branch is not merely better, but necessary. My experience it
that the more concrete and the less hand-wavy the argument, the more
likely it will be accepted. So, if you chose to believe that scenarios
and test cases are optional, just remember, merging your sandbox back to
the trunk is optional too. That does not mean that scenarios and test
cases are required, but it does mean that if these aren't present, you
need to come up with something just as compelling.
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html
[2] http://incubator.terra-intl.com/rules-for-revolutionaries.pdf
[3] http://marc2.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-community&m=105712356508947
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
