On Thu, 2002-11-07 at 08:01, Sam Ruby wrote:
I differ with that rendition, and believe that it is harmful to the community for it to be propogated.
I also differ with the rendition ( almost all of it )
Good, I like to be wrong so that I can learn something (I'm not ironic: I really mean it! :)
, and need
to point that every tomcat release so far ( except the very first one -
Sam may remember that ) was based on a majority vote on tomcat-dev.
That includes tomcat4.0, 3.3, 4.1.
The main problem that the 'revolution' rule solves ( IMO ) is that it
prevents a small group ( or one person ) to control a codebase and a project by using the veto. It's quite easy to find technical
reasons with anything, and very hard to define what's 'valid'.
If a majority of committers wants to go in one direction with the architecture or some features - and few people are against, then
the revolution is the only way to do that ( AFAIK ).
Please, let me ask you a few questions. I would be very happy if you or others could answer them:
1) was Catalina voted as Tomcat 4.0 explicitly by the majority of the tomcat dev community?
2) did the above vote take place when Tomcat was at 3.2 version?
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?
4) is it true that at some point and for a while two different set of committers were working on two different tomcat codebases and both released as *tomcat* because of technical divergences?
I think having more direct information on these things will help us identify potential bugs into the rules for revolutionaries.
-- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------
