Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
I wouldn't call it "rogue" :)
I'm surprised that there weren't any version tags, as I am usually
very good about that...
Do you want to see a release?
This whole discussion strikes me as odd. To me, the reasons for a new
release are that you have new features and/or bugfixes that you want
to get out there. Why on earth would you put out a new release of
something that has not been actively developed for at least 3 years,
and, of which nobody really has taken ownership, something that is
basically abandonware?
Because at the ASF, the concept of release is a serious thing.
"The concept of release is a serious thing."
Hmm... My first reaction to this sentence was basically: "What on earth
is this guy saying?" Like, does this mean that, elsewhere, the "concept"
of release is *not* a "serious" thing? And what does that mean, pray tell...
Well, okay, it may be that there is some greater seriousness than
average at ASF regarding the various kind of administrative/bureaucratic
procedures around a release, and what it means to label a release as RC
vs. final vs. preview or whatever.... though I don't honestly know either...
The problem I see is that when you are serious about all the formalities
and procedures around something when the "something" in question is a
joke, then the whole thing is really kind of a bigger joke.
I mean, one could think of some kind of monty-python-esque skit in which
you have a very formal sort of funeral, everybody dressed in somber
attire, solemn eulogies being offered, and the priest in all the
priestly attire speaking solemnly and so on. "Ah, Cyril, I knew him
well." "The first time I met Cyril...." Later, a 21-gun salute is
offered, like a full state funeral. Flags flying at half mast...
Towards the end of the skit it is revealed that Cyril is some kid's pet
hamster.
Surely you see my point. The very "seriousness", the formality around
the pet hamster's funeral makes it far more of a joke than it could ever
be otherwise. Likewise, the "concept of release" can be serious and all,
but if the thing being released is something of a joke, some abandonware
that was left in some half-baked state, doesn't all the "seriousness"
just make the whole thing even more of a joke?
Henri
pointed out that for some reason, it's not clear that there was an
official release of this, so just for that reason, there should be.
Yes, but again, this is formalistic, bureaucratic discussion around
something that... let's face it... is something of a joke.
In whose interest is it to encourage people to use code that is not
being actively maintained or supported? That is what you would be
doing by putting out some kind of official release of DVSL.
If people want to use it, that's their option. If they then want to
contribute to it, they are not only welcome, but encouraged.
Well, typically, a con-man will defend himself by saying that the person
getting conned is acting of his own free will.
For example, somebody who makes a living peddling low-quality penny
stock investments will say that the people who buy this stuff (and
invariably lose their money) were fully aware of the risk of losing
their money and so on. That's true as far as it goes. The problem is
that the penny stock huckster invariably was trying to create the
impression that the underlying companies were much more solid
investments than they actually were. Also, the person who bought this
stuff was not a sophisticated stock investor, but a nice little old lady
or some other kind of stock market neophyte, who did not fully
understand how risky these investments were.
If somebody knowingly wants to use software that is in a completely
abandoned, orphaned state, that is their right, just as if they want to
invest in near-worthless penny stocks.
There is only a problem if somebody is misrepresenting what these things
are. My concern would be that, by putting out a release, you could be
sending the signal that this really is an active project, when it is
not. I think there is some moral hazard in that.
After all, with the money that granny put into those penny stocks, she
could have bought some good blue chip investments that would at least
hold their value and probably appreciate. Similarly, the dead end effort
that somebody puts into some obsolete abandonware project could have
been invested in mastering some software tool that is actively
maintained and developed.
But the real question is whether your goal here is self-promotion,
promoting your own work independently of its quality -- or whether you
want to play a positive, helpful role for people.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project http://freemarker.org
Declarative XML processing with FreeMarker:
http://freemarker.org/docs/xgui_declarative_basics.html
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
