Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: > Costin Manolache wrote: >> On 9/20/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Bill Barker wrote: >>> >>> >>>> TC 4.1.x and TC 5.5.x represented major changes to the core API, and >>>> resulted in much more stable Tomcat code. There is no such issue >>>> for TC >>>> 6.0.x (just a disagreement on the comet API, which we have already >>>> dealt >>>> with, and decided to let software-darwinism take it's course). >>>> >>> When I suggested a TC 6.0 and 6.5 dual approach, Costin said: >>> >>> "Strong -1 on this. Done that - didn't work so good, and it >>> doesn't solve >>> the core problem - it's not about 'cutting edge' versus 'stable',..." >>> >> >> >> >> Context needed :-) >> >> -1 was on having a TC6.5 as a way to resolve conflicts ( so some >> people can >> make broad >> changes in one and some in other without having to >> 'discuss'/argue/veto ). >> >> The transition between 5.5 to 6.0 ( AFAIK ) was based on '5.5 is mostly >> frozen, only important >> and select changes backported, all new activity on 6.0'. >> >> I also don't think a 6.5 is needed unless there is no huge >> architecture and >> API change, as it happened in 5.5->6.0, >> > well, we have the annotation changes needed for geronimo, that were not > allowed in 6.0 > personally, I think that was enough to keep trunk alive. > Let's say that I did have a huge architecture change, lets say, I want > to swap out ByteChunk/CharChunk for ByteBuffer/CharBuffer and also use > nio charset conversion, > then doing that in trunk is not so appropriate either. So I will do that > in sandbox, the right place for an experiment like that. Maybe it turns > out that it worked perfectly, and we want to put that into Tomcat, we > can't put it in 6.0, that would be insane, and we don't have a trunk, so > where do we put it? > > Removing trunk, pretty much halted any chances for future innovation, as > approved sandbox experiments have nowhere to go.
To my point of view the goal is/was not to remove trunk for ever. The goal is/was to have a trunk where we all (or mostly all) agree on what we want in it. It needs a road map for the future and may be rules how to turn innovation in a stable product. It also needs more than 2 participants to prevent endless and useless disagreements. Cheers Jean-Frederic > >> but my 'strong -1' was for the reasons above. I don't mind having a >> 6.5 - >> if both Remy and Filip and all other >> people who are actively developing move to 6.5 so changes get the right >> review ( instead of 'that's my branch, that's yours' ) >> > the "my" vs "your" should have never happened, and when those terms were > coined, they should have been shutdown that very minute. > I never believed in those terms for sure. > > Filip > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
