Remy Maucherat wrote:
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).
and your veto was noted, though it explicitly said "leave it in trunk",
whenever, you decide to change that, let me know. but so far you haven't.
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.
yet, 100% backwards compatible.
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.
trunk != comet
you need to get yourself straightened out, just cause you don't like
comet, doesn't justify blowing away trunk. we can simply revert comet if
that is your only point of argument.
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 ?)
he :) we've had a few I believe
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.
yes, never the less, a vote would have been definitive, and people would
have been inclined to vote, just for the sake of ending the discussion.
If you listened to Mladen, he would have voted for you, regardless of
what the API was, since you were the originator to the pre-"event" API.
remember, it would be very hard to justify an API as technically bad, it
is a personal preference.
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 :)
<joke>more like price-is-right contest</joke>
Thanks for the info, we're not there yet I think.
we could be, if we just focused on getting the real issues resolved, not
getting rid of entire branches, like trunk.
Filip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
