@apache web pages
someone (andy?) started a trend of setting up personal web pages at cvs.apache.org (that being where all committers have accounts) and i'd like to refresh the idea in everyone's mind 'cuz i think it's a good one; help us get familiar with each other a bit, maybe. just put something in cvs.apache.org:$HOME/public_html .. from looking at it, there are almost 60 people who have at least set up the directory, if not put useful stuff in it.
Re: Rules for Revolutionaries
On Monday, Nov 11, 2002, at 19:05 US/Pacific, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Quoting Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks for answering this, it is really helpful. On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 04:25, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: 3) is it true that Tomcat 3.3 was released *after* tomcat 4.0 was release and that was *not* a bugfix release but an alternative development branch? True ( released after, not a bugfix - it wasn't a branch but the trunk for 3.x ). Tomcat 3.3 release also had a majority of the tomcat-dev community. Most people working on 4.0 voted +-0 or abstained - and the same happened when 4.0 was released, with people working on 3.3 abstaining. As I said - the majority controls the name and the release. A majority of tomcat committers can vote to make a release called Tomcat-anything, and the release can't be vetoed. There is something wrong here and I hope you get to see it: the community majority can't vote for a revolution *and* vote for new release of the old branch. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever. When a revolution is voted and accepted, no new release which is not a bugfix can be accepted. Period. Why? because there can't be *two* different projects using the same name. This is a bit too strong. Given the alternative, an irreversible split of the two communities, I think the solution was the only acceptable one at that time for everybody involved. There is no way you can convince people they should drop whatever they've been working on for years. And enforcing a strict rules is a bit out of place in an open-source community, where we usually have no regard to authority, but to common-sense and respect. Some thing were very different ( target VM, hooks, size/features trade-off ). Other things started different but become identical ( facades for example ). That's the whole point of a revolution - to improve the community and the code. One thing is very sure - we learned a lot from each other, and that wouldn't have been true if one set moved out. Acknowleged. This is why I think the rules for revolutionaries just work. But this doesn't mean that they can't be improved and this is *exactly* what I'm doing right now: trying to find a way to avoid the problems and negative friction that that tomcat revolution created. I'm not sure we can avoid this type of situations since each time they'll have something unique. There is a reason why history repeats itself: people never learn from other's experience, they have to experience it themselves. I don't think we should spend our time thinking of ways to fix this, just let thing happen and we'll deal with them at that time. AFAIK there's no situation like this right now, so what are trying to fix? To answer one unasked question - a majority vote on a revolution branch doesn't mean everyone is required to abandon other revolutions or the main trunk and work on the new codebase. I *strongly* disagree. After the majority of the community expressed a vote on a revolution, the old codebase *lost* the status of being actively maintained and, in order to continue, should have been filed for *another* proposal, with *another* codename and *without* the ability to make releases. I'm glad this actually didn't happen, since it took a long time for the 4.0 branch to become stable and usable. If it weren't for the legacy codebase being continually developed, we would have been stuck with a slow 3.2 and a buggy 4.0. I've used Tomcat 3.3 for more than a year before switching to 4.1, and I liked 3.3 a lot for its speed and features. It would have solved *much* of the negative feelings that the tomcat community was spreading around the ASF at that time. Not so, that would have been an example of how Apache should not work. Whatever we do is for fun and peer acknoledgement, not because some authority tells us what and how to do it. Probably we would have had people leaving the community. Look at what happened in the not so distant past in the Emacs community, where Stallman imposed his points of view regarding how Emacs should look. People were pissed of and forked off XEmacs. Both are still in use today, and although they share very little in the underlying C code, higher level Lisp programs still work on both versions. It just means the revolution is accepted and can move out of proposal state and be released using the project name. Other revolutions can happen at any time. I still disagree. The rules of revolutionaries *MUST* (I repeat *MUST*!!!) protect the identity of the project more than they protect the freedom of innovation of the single developers. So how would you have decided which version to be named Tomcat? The old one which was named like that since the beginning, or the new one, which had nothing to do with the old source code base? Either way you chose, you'd have ended up pissing off the other camp. More than anything else, the fact that two different codebases were *released* with the same name at
Re: @apache web pages
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: The advantage is that anyone using forrest could have their pages generated from ONE central running copy of forrest. We won't have 60-300 ssh demons running remotely uploading pages opening up security holes... and its just good clean infrastructure! I'll demonstrate lack of impact on the server, and get blessings from people on infrastructure etc before scheduling this of course. Any volunteers for #1? Any forresters willing to help me out spelunking forrest? Could be one of the things that runs on cocoondev.org (the machine) - being equiped to run Java, and being proposed to be more officially affiliated/endorsed by (at least) the Cocoon community. But then of course it runs externally to daedalus, but having gone through this before, I would not hope for the possibility to run role-based/time-triggered/Java-based processes on daedalus/icarus. /Steven -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org
Re: @apache web pages
Hi, we could point people.apache.org there and make http://people.apache.org/~committer_name Regards Henning On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 01:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: someone (andy?) started a trend of setting up personal web pages at cvs.apache.org (that being where all committers have accounts) and i'd like to refresh the idea in everyone's mind 'cuz i think it's a good one; help us get familiar with each other a bit, maybe. just put something in cvs.apache.org:$HOME/public_html .. from looking at it, there are almost 60 people who have at least set up the directory, if not put useful stuff in it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
Re: @apache web pages
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Oh, and maybe start to maintain a repository of each person. A directory or something. Yellow-pages like front-page. that is a most excellent idea. i do not have the requisite karma to enact it, but +1 anyhow! http://cvs.apache.org/~coar/people.html updated nightly from everyone who has a public_html/index.html .
Re: @apache web pages
Ovidiu Predescu wrote: Or a script can identify what are the users that have home pages and generates the directory page automatically. This way there is no need to modify a config file, new users are automatically added once they have their home pages setup. heh, done in prototype. see my earlier mail.
Re: @apache web pages
Steven Noels wrote: How about people having a homepage at daedalus? i'd recommend that we settle on one place or the other, rather than having them scattered all about. and, since all committers (except php :-( have access to cvs.apache.org, and not everyone has access to daedalus, i recommend that the former be the place.
Re: @apache web pages
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Yes. and no. Las Vegas is way too far for my travel budget this year :( I'll have to wait for the next Europe ApacheCon. I hope thats not spaced too close together... Next May in London please :) Actually no, early June. I'll be at a wedding in May. *still getting used to the complete lack of holiday in the US* Hen
RE: @apache web pages
De : Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes. and no. Las Vegas is way too far for my travel budget this year :( I'll have to wait for the next Europe ApacheCon. I hope thats not spaced too close together... I'd love to see more some more of Europe... Although I won't complain at all if its in Munich ;-) -- I like to stay at this little hotel that some of my German friends recommended to me for irony...on Im Tal near Isatorplatz between the McDonalds and Burger King within walking distance of the American Embassy of Beer (Hoffbrauhaus) As long as you avoid it during the Oktoberfest, Munich is a fine city. But then, it's well known that French people don't know anything about beer : -- Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jakarta Jetspeed - Enterprise Portal in Java http://jakarta.apache.org/jetspeed/
Re: Rules for Rule-making (Re: Rules for Revolutionaries)
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:18:43AM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: ... Then we can all get back to coding, instead of worrying that some busybodies on this list are hatching a top-down Apache Bureaucracy for us to live in. +0 -- that is not the ONLY reason for being on this list. That was A reason for being on the REORG list but hopefully you're hear also to build stronger cross-apache ties and get to know your fellow committers and whats going on elsewhere for the good of creating a stronger community. :) Sorry, it was an unfairly harsh comment.. --Jeff
Re: Rules for Revolutionaries
Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. I'm not convinced that having two codebases is necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here seems to have centered around the concerns of the existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) think of the 3.x/4.x division. -- Joe Schaefer
The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
The Apache Jakarta Law: Any discussion regarding Apache Jakarta will eventually degrade into a discussion about the Tomcat 3.3/4.0 issue, often including a full re-analysis of the events, revision of the history, and sometimes degrading into a full re-enactment of the emotionally charged flamewar that engulfed the Tomcat project at the time. Often even those who don't often participate in such interesting uses of time will even match the judgement logic necessary to participate in such a conversation. I hope one day my Law is proven false. Perhaps if those involved were to take this on to a wiki and document all about it, the different view points and lessons learned, opposing lessons learned etc, we could one day make this law obsolete at least. -Andy Joe Schaefer wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. I'm not convinced that having two codebases is necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here seems to have centered around the concerns of the existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) think of the 3.x/4.x division.
Re: The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
First time I've ever seen it discussed. Was an interesting discussion for a while until I hit the point of: Okay, go write this up on a webpage so it makes sense. On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: The Apache Jakarta Law: Any discussion regarding Apache Jakarta will eventually degrade into a discussion about the Tomcat 3.3/4.0 issue, often including a full re-analysis of the events, revision of the history, and sometimes degrading into a full re-enactment of the emotionally charged flamewar that engulfed the Tomcat project at the time. Often even those who don't often participate in such interesting uses of time will even match the judgement logic necessary to participate in such a conversation. I hope one day my Law is proven false. Perhaps if those involved were to take this on to a wiki and document all about it, the different view points and lessons learned, opposing lessons learned etc, we could one day make this law obsolete at least. -Andy Joe Schaefer wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. I'm not convinced that having two codebases is necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here seems to have centered around the concerns of the existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) think of the 3.x/4.x division. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
So far it seems Stefano ( who is not currently a very active tomcat developer) is pissed off by the decisions made on tomcat-dev. I don't see too many tomcat developers flaming each other. IMHO most ( or all ) tomcat developers agree that both code bases had some good and some bad parts. I also think most of the tomcat community is behind 5.0, which is a merge of ideas and code from both 3.3 and 4.x. And I think users were very well served, and the outcome is one of the best possible. In the end we have a far better community and a lot more tolerance and understanding. Costin On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 08:28, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: The Apache Jakarta Law: Any discussion regarding Apache Jakarta will eventually degrade into a discussion about the Tomcat 3.3/4.0 issue, often including a full re-analysis of the events, revision of the history, and sometimes degrading into a full re-enactment of the emotionally charged flamewar that engulfed the Tomcat project at the time. Often even those who don't often participate in such interesting uses of time will even match the judgement logic necessary to participate in such a conversation. I hope one day my Law is proven false. Perhaps if those involved were to take this on to a wiki and document all about it, the different view points and lessons learned, opposing lessons learned etc, we could one day make this law obsolete at least. -Andy Joe Schaefer wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. I'm not convinced that having two codebases is necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here seems to have centered around the concerns of the existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) think of the 3.x/4.x division. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for Revolutionaries
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 07:25, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Here is what I would have liked to see happening in Tomcat: What you would have liked is your problem. As I repeated quite a few times and you don't seem to hear is that the decision about a release is a majority vote and can't be vetoed - even if it pisses off some people. A vote on a feature or revolution doesn't mean the end of other features or codebases. As long as each codebase can gather a majority vote - things are going well. There are people who can vote +1 on more than one release and codebase. What's important is that most of the people who vote +1 on a codebase don't automatically vote -1 on the other codebase - which is the real solution. If you don't need or care about something - it doesn't mean you should vote -1 on it. If 3 fellow commiters are voting +1 - then probably there is a real need or issue. I don't think anyone voted -1 on a 4.0 release, and nobody voted -1 on the 3.3 release ( if I remember correctly ). And I think the same should apply to other apache projects, even older ones. Costin
Re: The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
Alright, here you go. Get it out of your systems flamebait degree=total so I hear 3.3 was a total waste of time and that 4.0 was the best thing ever and that 4.0 is way faster than 3.3. /flamebait flamebait degree=total mode=silly So I hear 4.0 was a big evil conspiricy on the part of Sun via Craig McClanahan who is really a drone for the borg and Scott M is actually the Hive Queen with a holigraphic field around him to make her look human. I hear 3.3 was the rightous product of REAL apache people. /flamebait Though I could be wrong... -Andy :-D Costin Manolache wrote: So far it seems Stefano ( who is not currently a very active tomcat developer) is pissed off by the decisions made on tomcat-dev. I don't see too many tomcat developers flaming each other. IMHO most ( or all ) tomcat developers agree that both code bases had some good and some bad parts. I also think most of the tomcat community is behind 5.0, which is a merge of ideas and code from both 3.3 and 4.x. And I think users were very well served, and the outcome is one of the best possible. In the end we have a far better community and a lot more tolerance and understanding. Costin On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 08:28, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: The Apache Jakarta Law: Any discussion regarding Apache Jakarta will eventually degrade into a discussion about the Tomcat 3.3/4.0 issue, often including a full re-analysis of the events, revision of the history, and sometimes degrading into a full re-enactment of the emotionally charged flamewar that engulfed the Tomcat project at the time. Often even those who don't often participate in such interesting uses of time will even match the judgement logic necessary to participate in such a conversation. I hope one day my Law is proven false. Perhaps if those involved were to take this on to a wiki and document all about it, the different view points and lessons learned, opposing lessons learned etc, we could one day make this law obsolete at least. -Andy Joe Schaefer wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. I'm not convinced that having two codebases is necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here seems to have centered around the concerns of the existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) think of the 3.x/4.x division. - 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]
