2011/6/7 Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <[email protected]> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Tsuyoshi Ito <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Henry, hi Reto > > > > Can I remind you that we are working towards a release and IMO we should > > not > > change APIs anymore. Your are now discussing over 2 weeks about the > > GraphNodeProvider and IMO your discussion isn't very constructive. > > > > I think there ist some potential thread that bundles can add > documentation > > to the contentgraph as addition as Henry mentioned.Therefore we should > > create an issue. > > > > But as Tommaso mentioned if you don't trust GraphNodeProvider or > > ContentGraphProvider don't used it. I have developed a lot of > applications > > (e.g. Quiz, Poll, Feed Manager) where I don't use the > ContentGraphProvider > > because I don't want to share the information or I don't trust it. > > > > I think we could rename the package of the GraphNodeProvider to make > clear > > that it depends on the contentgraph and its additions. So I suggest to > > rename the package of the GraphNodeProvider to > > > > platform.content.graphnodeprovider > > > > Would be cool if we could find a solution. > > > Indeed, I'm happy with the renaming if Henry can withdraw his -1 and accept > the proposed resolutions to the issues being discussed. >
At this point I think we do need to find a solution to move forward and this is what it seems good to me. I don't want to find ourselves in the situation Lucene/Solr project faced lately with people vetoing and reverting each other's commit requiring a formal report on how to deal with those issues from the ASF Board [1]. Being an Apache project consists also of building a community able to behave in a smart and positive way even when there are controversial opinions and it seems to me we have to learn a lot here, see one example: Most of any attempts I have made at closing an issue have been blocked by > you. True my > code is not perfect, but neither is yours. And that is a little bit why I > am giving you > a bit of heat here. so where do we end up with this? This sounds like "I am annoying you since you've been annoying me", is that positive? I do think we should forget for a moment the recent controversies and keep up the good work we've been doing for more than a year and a half with Clerezza. Can we? Tommaso [1] : https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt > > Reto > > > > > > > Cheers > > Tsuy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Henry Story <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:07, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: > > > > > > > -1 for the moment on closing the issue. (not on removing the code) > > > >> Please answer the above points carefully. > > > > > > > > I can of course remove the code, In understood the staement above as > > you > > > not > > > > explicitely not asking me to do so. The point is that it makes little > > > > difference (apart from the couple of minutes needed for the revert): > > your > > > -1 > > > > is blocking further development. > > > > > > > > To your claim that I did not provide an explanation for my recent -1 > to > > > your > > > > resolution of CLEREZZA-515: A -1 without technical reasons is not > > valid, > > > I > > > > provided 5 technical reasons with my -1. I refused to give further > > > > explanations and enter discussion before you removed the > compatibility > > > and > > > > api-description breaking patch. It took you more than a week to > revert > > > this > > > > change, this was a serious impediment on using the code in trunk. > > > > > > > > May I ask you to be explicit: > > > > > > > > [ ] I stick to my -1, but I don't mind the code staying there as long > > as > > > no > > > > new code is added depending on it > > > > [ ] I want the patch for CLEREZZA-540 reverted > > > > [ ] I withdraw my -1 > > > > > > I have also provided ample technical reasons. But I am willing to look > at > > > your arguments (unlike your -1 on my code). The discussion seems to be > > > evolving quite a lot. I want to look at this relation between JSR311 > code > > > and the > > > > > > If I may say: adding code quickly to ZZ and then closing issues > quickly > > > seems like a way to bypass scrutiny. > > > > > > Reviewing code as you mentioned recently in CLEREZZA-516 is a lot of > work > > > (indeed you asked me there to do more work refactoring things, to avoid > > you > > > having to do such reviewing). I am sure you can make a branch, like my > > > bblfish branch, and work on that in the mean time. > > > > > > I'll be looking at your criticism of my JSR311 points and your > > explanation > > > for why you need this next. You should be happy that you get this free > > > reviewing. Criticism is expensive to purchase. > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > Social Web Architect > > > http://bblfish.net/ > > > > > > > > >
