William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Development in "trunk" is not done properly at the moment.
Back up 1 step; define "proper", with pointers to the
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/ documents, if they exist.
Otherwise you are doing a good job of showing the entire vote is
really nothing but ad hominem attacks between a few developers,
and has much less to do with code than personalities.
There's a large thread on these issues. At the time, the API design was
downright bad. It did improve to some extent (without further debate),
but this was all done in trunk without any collaboration.
You just said you improved it; ergo you collaborated. You don't need
dev@ mails to discuss commits until someone disagrees, just as you did.
API changing code was committed without prior discussion, and then
further modifications were made, all in an official branch (I then
started working on a sandbox branch myself, which was far more appropriate).
Your veto in that example said "leave it on trunk". If you now disagree
that it can be improved to satisfy your original veto, restate your
technical veto and just ask for the revisions to be reverted.
Everything was explained in the thread. I found the API to be very
perfectible and too complex. Iterative simplifications could be made
without affecting functionality. Some underlying implementation was off
too, if I remember correctly.
Of course all code is written without collaboration, unless you are all
trying to reach a consensus character-by-character on how the source
code is created. How it's integrated, or if it is at all, is a matter
for the project to determine together.
I expect some talking when APIs are concerned, or it should be done in
the sandbox :| Hence, my requests and the vote to move trunk to the
sandbox, which I think are legitimate.
I've actually glanced through the various earlier messages and really
see only two points of view expressed on the list about any of the actual
code. Yours, and Filips. Which leads me to read the whole debate as
a turf war over Tomcat. I can't believe this project would already be
at the melt-down point again, but here we are. It's not your personal
playground, nor is it Filip's personal playground.
(excuse me, but when was the previous meltdown ?)
Feel free to contradict my opinion with a pointer or two at some technical
input from other project members, of course. But I become concerned when
only two people in a project even grok the technical implications of what
is in their repository.
Yes, only two persons participate in the debate. I think we fully agree
on the problem, since Filip proposed to vote on proposals but I believed
it would be pointless since only two persons seemed to hold informed
votes (or care, which is a bit the same) about it.
Some backstory,
As a frame of reference, the same thing happened at APR/HTTPD over the
entire concept of buckets and brigades. Ryan and Greg were at odds over
the implications. As svn was properly managed with commits/vetos/reverts,
the projects were at an impasse with no movement to the next generation
server. So, all the committers were invited to a f2f powwow for Greg and
Ryan to duke it out and thoroughly explain their plan and justification.
We treated it as a non-vetoable situation. Neither design was technically
invalid, it was a preference. So they had their shootout, and (gasp) even
came to agreement on the appropriate solution (to the nods of dozens of
attendees). More importantly, the other committers who were 'inflicted'
with the design had a chance to thoroughly understand what it was and why
it was done that way.
Back to Tomcat, it sounds like this is an argument of preference over
technical correctness. Perhaps November in Atlanta or Hong Kong would
be a good time for you to sit down, fill in all the other interested
committers in the exact merits of your preferences, and reach consensus?
And maybe feathercast the debate highlights and decision :)
Thanks for the info, we're not there yet I think.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
