On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:09, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > Because it is not being maintained in Avalon now and it is
> > unlikely it will be maintained in Avalon in the future.
>
> Unlikely in the sense that we're getting rid of parts of Avalon
> that are out of scope.
yep - Why add a dependency on something scheduled to be culled ?
> 4. But, there is no need for that dependency - Phoenix
> can depend on Excalibur/Compatibility. You and everyone
> else can develop the CLI project under Compatibility
> just as well as you can do it under Spice.
Not true.
If I want to undeprecate CLI and continue development and guarentee stability
of CLI for years to come I can not do that in Avalon but I can do that
outside Avalon.
> So, I don't get this maintenance part. If I leave it in a stable
> state - and coder X goes in a breaks it, shouldn't then coder X
> fix it?
They should fix it (but history shows that does not happen). However you
should also be monitoring the change and making sure all the changers done by
coder X do not inadverantly break something (ie coder X may not know
something is broken) and if coderX skimps on some of the work (docs, unit
tests, etc) then you have to be willing to step up and do something about it.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
------------------------------------------------
"No. Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda
------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
