Dave Newton wrote:
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
Dave Newton wrote:
If it _didn't_ make somebody shudder I'd seriously question their
overall programming knowledge... at some point you have to start over.
Well, that's one assessment. OTOH, it is problematic to think that if
somebody disagrees with you on this or something else that it calls
into question their professional competence.
Let's see...
"[...] if somebody disagrees with you on this or something else [...]"
You added the "or something else" part. I was addressing the idea that
refactoring Struts 1.x to the degree necessary to make it a "modern
solution" (the definition of which is yet another debate I shall not be
bothered with.)
I stand by what I said: it's simply not worth the effort when other,
better [IMO] solution exist, and I would most certainly question the
knowledge of someone that disagreed with me. Would I _listen_ to why
s/he thinks it'd be worth it? For a little while, sure, until I made a
decision regarding their professional competence.
But Dave, this is all an issue that is empirically resolvable. If
somebody thinks that they can refactor Struts 1.x to make it a "modern
solution" (your words) and you (in your seasoned professional wisdom)
think that this person is embarking on a fruitless endeavor, this is a
difference of views that can be reality-tested.
And again, for the nth time now, if the current Struts developers have
no intention of doing anything with this codebase, what is there to lose
by letting other people who want to do something do it?
I mean, this seems to me to be exactly as if there was some land out
there that nobody was using, it's rocky and has very poor soil, and
nobody wants to farm it or do anything else with it, and some crazy
person (who you judge is not a competent farmer) wants to work that land
and try to grow something there, why should you stop them? If nobody has
any plans to do anything with it anyway...
I guess it's "taboo" to call people's professional competence into
question though.
I don't know if "taboo" is the right word here. It's just that there are
forms of argumentation that are valid and forms that are not. Once you
start saying: "I believe X is the case and, by the way, people who do
not believe this are not professionally competent..." this, IMO, is not
really an acceptable, legitimate argument.
The reason certain forms of argument are legitimate while others are
not, is because they provide a basis to have a constructive discussion.
Once you start saying that people who don't believe X are incompetents,
you are basically not going to have a constructive discussion.
That's weird, 'cuz I do that almost every day. Heck, when I was more
directly involved in the hiring/firing/etc. I often did it several times
a day. When I was looking at resumes I'd question competence on a
line-by-line basis.
Well, what's your point here? We're not looking at anybody's resume.
We're just here having a conversation about something. Again, to say:
"You disagree with me about X, therefore you must be an incompetent" is
not a way to have a constructive conversation. Surely you can see that....
Again, I think my point stands: if there is no desire on the part of
existing Struts committers to do anything with the Struts 1.x
codebase, then there is really nothing to lose by letting other people
who want to develop that come in and do something.
Of course _you_ think your point stands, why else would you bother?
(Well, I wonder why you'd bother anyway since you're not involved in the
web-app space, or Struts, but this seems to be a long-term ongoing issue
with you. It's okay little buddy; we've all got our issues.)
The point _I_ made regarding willy-nilly commit rights also still
stands: I know _I_ wouldn't have time to review everybody's new code,
stability is important to me, so I don't _want_ just anybody to have
commit access.
Well, a point about you never having run an open source project is that
you have this idea that when you let people commit code that they just
start madly committing all kinds of code. That basically just doesn't
happen. If you had experience running open source projects, you would
know this.
If you say so... I am not quite sure what the basis of our
disagreement on that was. And I have to point out that, okay, you can
disagree with me, but it's hardly a symmetrical thing. I have actual
experience running open source projects. You apparently do not.
And? I guess that invalidates anything I have to say.
I never said that.
You're not a politician (and, I suspect, have never been one) so I will
not listen to anything you have to say regarding the current Iraq
situation, which you inappropriately tried to use as an example saying
that just because you have an opinion on it doesn't mean you should have
to go over there and fix it.
I think the argument was appropriate. I can have an opinion about the
Iraq situation and I can express it. The counter-argument of "Why don't
you go there and fix the situation yourself?" is not valid.
Now, to extend that, if I am actually talking to an Iraqi or somebody
who has spent extensive amounts of time in Iraq, I do have to defer to
the fact that they know certain things about the reality on the ground
that I don't. Similarly, if I have run open source projects and you have
not...
Obviously you going over there would not
fix that particular problem.
Of course not. But that's a red herring argument.
Although it might fix several others.
But anyway, to focus on the question of our disagreement on this,
let's take a specific case in point. I am not acquainted personally
with Phil Zoio, the author of Strecks. It's not like I have some
agenda of "championing his cause" or something like that; it's just a
case in point to focus discussion. Now, it seems self-evident that
this is a guy who is able and willing to do some quality work. Now, my
view of things is that there is really no legitimate reason not to
immediately make somebody like that a committer on the Struts project,
if he wanted to do work on 1.x. (Again, if he or others want to do
something with it and the existing committers don't...)
Do you disagree with my view on this? If you do, what is the basis for
your disagreement?
Yes, I disagree.
I don't know Phil, I haven't seen Strecks, haven't seen the code, etc.
so I have zero basis for saying he's "able and willing to do some
quality work." That's a show-stopper.
"Oh, he has an open-source project that sounds and looks good, and he
wants to work." Those are not credentials. He might be the greatest
programmer ever, Strecks might be the bestest thing since sliced bread
(but it's not because it's not Lisp or SmallTalk, but whatever), and
maybe it _should_ be brought in. Awesome--but _I_ don't know that.
Well, how are you ever going to know?
Again, if there is no plan to do anything with Struts 1.x, what does one
have to lose anyway by letting people work on it?
So I would remain agnostic pending further information.
Well, I say, give people like that a crack and, in particular, if there
is no risk really, since this is a codebase that is being abandoned
anyway, let them have their chance and then you'll have your "further
information" soon enough.
I still don't know why you care so much about, and spend so much time
discussing, a project you're not interested in.
The basic issues in this question do interest me quite a bit.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
