Quoting Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Thanks for answering this, it is really helpful.

> On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 04:25, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: 
> 
> > 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?
> 
> True. 
> 
> > 2) did the above vote take place when Tomcat was at 3.2 version?
> 
> True. 
> 
> > 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.
 
> > 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?
> 
> That's also true. A lot of code was shared between the 2 codebases
> ( same jasper, ajp connector ) and a lot of ideas were common.

Yes, I recognize that but it's fairly obvious: they were doing the exact same 
thing!
 
> 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.
 
> 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.

It would have solved *much* of the negative feelings that the tomcat community
was spreading around the ASF at that time.

> 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. 

More than anything else, the fact that two different codebases were *released*
with the same name at the same time, pissed many people off (myself included)
and created a lot of problems in the users.

The rules for revolutionaries had a bug since they didn't specify what was going
to happen to the project that was overruled by the revolution. 

We have to fix this in the future.

But the way I want this to be fixed is to avoid the fragmentation of a project
identity and Tomcat did exactly that.

How do you feel about this?

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to