On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:57, Leo Simons wrote:
> > * released components have backwards compat broken haphazardly
>
> just in cvs, and they get fixed, too. Having CVS means some experiments are
> possible!
Still no one has fixed the backwards incompatible changes to thread. It has
been a couple of weeks now, a -1 and ... nothing.
> > * 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.
majority of licenses are unenforcable because they include the incorrect years
or they contain things like @year@ as the year. Because we attach the full
license to each file the files are considered separately licensed. Which
means that if a file must have the correct years in copyright years.
So if it was created in 2000 and edited in all years since it would be
2000-2003, if it was edited in 2000 and again this year it would be 2000,2003
or various other combinations (ie 2000-2001,2003).
> Have these things always been "screwed"?
some of it has, some hasn't. Several of the things that have got more screwed
over time you will actually find me arguing against in the past.
> 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?
one point at a time.
* "slimming avalon down" - unfortunate that it has to occur but probably for
the best
* "unified coordinated releases" - really bad idea. Components should be
releases when they are stable and supported. They should be released by the
people who are willing to support them after they are released. The only
reason why coordinated releases could make sense is if there is high coupling
between components - in which case I would argue that the components should
not be released. I would have thought that this was learned from the last big
ball of mud release.
* "replacing cocoon with forrest" - good for framework. Not necessary for
phoenix atm but I would like to keep it because it may be in the future. For
the rest the complexity is not justified so axe it.
* "forrestbot, jira tracker, using a wiki" are just tools and are as useful as
they are used. I love forrestbot and the fact that jeff is maintaing it
(thanks!), jira is better than bugzilla IMHO and wiki ... seems to be at
least generating some docs.
> If not, what
> should we be doing? Are there other things we should be doing?
Two main things.
1. Empower those who are doing the work
2. stop putting fingers in the holes and start fixing the leaks.
For (1) stop vetoes for non-technical reasons and by those who aren't willing
to actually put in work to solve the problem.
For (2) there is a lot to do.
* Drop ant as build system for excalibur and replace with maven (I volunteer
to do this if no one will -1 it).
* Delete junk docs (ie docs that don't say anything but are just
placeholders). (I will also do this if no one -1s it)
* Delete docs from apps and all references from website - not maintained
anyways (I will axe)
* Delete any other non-maintained code or docs
* Drop Forrest dependency except where needed
* Stop insanity of uploading all the docs to site module and use site:deploy
from maven
* stop the pointless moving around of code. It can be deprecated in place if
need be
* remove all one-man codebases without prejudice
etc.
Plenty more things to do.
> > > 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?
You ask the same things over and over. If you were asking for clarification
that would be different.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
USER, n.:
The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot."
-- Dave Barry, "Claw Your Way to the Top"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
