Jeff Turner wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:05:24AM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
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.
Like? How many users do you see complaining because they have a choice?
Personally, I find Tomcat 4's startup time is too slow for Forrest/Cocoon development, so if it wasn't for 3.3.x, I'd be using Resin or Jetty.
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.
I have a hard time believing that _users_ would be better off if 3.3 development had been forcefully stopped once Catalina was accepted.
We have to fix this in the future.
Before 'fixing', it would be good to establish if a forked Tomcat really
did hurt the user base. I doubt if either of us have read enough
tomcat-user mail to make a clear judgement.
The question appears to me to be much more related to brand management. The tomcat brand is damaged with two courrent products. The "rules for revolutionaries" puts the obligation onto community to manage the brand, and if there is something different - then to create a new brand.
Cheers, Steve.
--Jeff
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
