Raphaël Luta wrote:
Erik Abele wrote:
Oh, of course - but for now there's no community yet so he is
complaining into the blue sky :)
I'd certainly like to see a response to the concerns raised by Martin
but OTOH I don't think that it should evolve into a discussion about
basic architectural principles or even impact the final consideration
of incubation.
It's just the initial code, nothing more :)
I don't agree with this statement.
The code itself is indeed only the initial codebase but along with
this codebase come an established group of committers with an
interest in keeping their current architecture or at least backward
compatibility
An established codebase is *much* more difficult to restructure
than starting from scratch. Even if someone would be willing to
contribute to this projet to help address major technical issues,
it would require a huge amount of effort to effect a significant
architectural change because of community inertia and backward
compatibility requirements.
From what I've seen at Apache, major rearchitecture work always
happen as a "revolution" with an entirely new implementation
being built and these "revolutions" are dangerous to a
project communiy health.
Given the frictions created by "revolutions", it's important
that these do not happen before the community is mature else
they may simply split it.
I think my point is simply that in a code grant incubation
scenario, initial codebase and initial community *do* matter
because they'll act as natural forces towards stability and
are likely to shape the community and codebase for a long time.
Hopefully, at some point, these somewhat abstract discussion of concerns
that are relevant to all proposals will solidify into concrete concerns
regarding this specific proposal.
Is code irrelevant? That would be absurd. That's why the code has been
made available for all to download, inspect and comment on.
I think a more neutral restatement of what Eric and Noel are trying to
say is that while good communities always overcome bad code, no amount
of good code can make up for a bad community.
On the other had, Raphaël, I see you making implicit assumptions that
the committers will have entrenched interests that will be difficult to
overcome, and that the existing community is "mature". What evidence do
you have of that? I'm sure that you can give examples of other
communities where that was a problem, and I can give examples of other
communities where that was NOT a problem. What do either examples
prove? Nothing.
What specific concerns do you have with this community and this codebase?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
