replying via webmail coz moz broke...sorry for any bad formatting... Citeren Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:34, Leo Simons wrote: > > The point is that you've issued some vetoes which I and others believe > > to be applying to something not subject to a veto ... or provide > > arguments that will convince us that they are. > > Its a code change and thus subject to veto. I have a solid technical reason > for veto, effects code that I work with and I am willing to do the work of > supporting my vote.
I think I should not spend more time talking about this with you; seems pointless, we're totally not getting through to each other I guess. Someone with better communication skills will have to try and get the points across. > > The point is also that other points you've made in this thread about the > > technical validity of the package should be addressed. If a package has > > no use or an unacceptable implementation, we shouldn't release it, hence > > claims like this need to be addressed when made, if the intent is indeed > > to release the package. > > I don't care if it is released or not. Quality matters less than your > commitment to maintain it. If there is people who will maintain and support > it then it should be released else not. +1 > > On a personal note, I am also pretty annoyed with your whining about us > > doing a "half-assed job" in various respects. I think the picture you > > paint is wrong, and you should either stop painting it and "get over it" > > or back things up. > > * website is screwed +1, esp. /apps/ > * released components have backwards compat broken haphazardly just in cvs, and they get fixed, too. Having CVS means some experiments are possible! > * indepent release of components is non existent eh? > * docs are non existent for many components +1 > * unit tests are non existent for many components +1 > * unit tests when present have poor coverage +1 > * unit tests when present and with good coverage are not run (and thus > "released" code fails to pass them) +1 > * when changes are made the required work of making changes is rarely done > (involves updating all avalon users of change, gump, build system and docs). +1 > * licenses on 90% of files is invalid could you please elaborate on this one? One of the things on my TTD is figuring out the last bits of any license issues. anyways, one could add * docs are outdated for many components * various docs contradict each other for many components * ... we can put together a large detailed list of these things, stuff it in an issue tracker, then actually fix things and tick them off. It will show both that there are things to fix and that things are being fixed. But just talk won't help us there, nor will just complaining. Have these things always been "screwed"? If not, when did that happen, how, and what can we do to prevent it from happening in the future? Do you think the work currently being done by some of us (ie slimming avalon down, "unified coordinated releases", replacing cocoon with forrest, forrestbot, jira tracker, using a wiki) is going in the right direction? If not, what should we be doing? Are there other things we should be doing? > Oh I am sure that you can say "you are working on it" but I have heard that > story for years now and nothing has changed. how about you say you are working on it? Or better yet, we all say we are working on it? Certainly, I'm not working on everything! I'll disagree on "nothing has changed for years"; I've been around for a bit over 2 years I think, and in that time avalon went from some obscure completely alpha project not many people knew about, to providing some rock-solid and real cool software. > > Also, you are a smart guy who knows quite well how the voting and > > discussion process flows here, and dragging out an explanation of > > something I know you understand perfectly well (as you taught me!) is > > just as annoying, so please stop that too. > > I have explained the same things in the past. It is annoying to have to > repeat > things when I know you will only ignore things again this time. what on earth makes you believe I'm ignoring you? When have I ignored you in the past? > > So, turning this around: what possible advantage is there to being a > > royal pain in the butt trying to block these things? Would it not be > > much more productive to focus on improving the quality of the code? > > I am not blocking release (as that is impossible). All I am blocking is > diluting quality of framework CVS for the sake of change and chest thumping. oh, come on! There is absolytely no-one looking to dilute quality of anything for the sake of change and chest thumping. If that is all you are wanting to block then we can all go to bed happily. Which is in fact is exactly what I'm going to do now ;) > *----------------------------------------------------* > | We must become the change we want to see. - Gandhi | > *----------------------------------------------------* gotta love those quotes :D g'night (on my end anyway), - Leo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
