Berin Loritsch wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin Loritsch wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
This really has created an environment where I do not feel confident in accepting your statements without a lot a suspicion and skepticism. I think it would be better for everyone concerned if I simply move the avalon-meta package back into Merlin, moving everything into the merlin namespace, and move forward from there. This will enable the assessment of Merlin's approach to meta-management, tags, tools, extensions, components, etc. - and from this, hopefully and more informed decision can be taken at some time in the future.
Don't do that. We have been making progress, and I would be against destroying
that progress.
In your reply to my request for a checklist of lifecycle extension concerns:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=105948538408807&w=2
You detailed that fact that you concerns are not in fact technical in nature - but instead - concerns related to the inclusion of facilities into the Avalon core namespace without sufficient understanding of these concerns by the development community and without sufficient feedback from t he user community. In fact we can summarize this entire "conflict" as a question of fear of the unknown, uncertainty of applicability, and doubt concerning utility.
I think I eloquently stated my position, and I believe my goal is compatible with yours.
I agree completely. You elequantly confirmed that you don't understand the problem. You eloquently described your *fear* of the pollution of the avalon namespace. You eloquently described you *uncertainty* as to technical applicability, and you eloquently described your *doubt* with respect to utility. This is common referred to *FUD*.
Releasing Merlin would address each and every-one of your concerns. Based on broader user feedback and greater developer experience we will be in a much better position to move forward constructively.
Actually, I think it would make things a little worse by diluting our already
thin resources. We have 90% of the equation agreed to. I think it would be
better for us to publish that 90% now, so that we can integrate them into the
other containers. That way, a realease of Merlin won't be such a big deal.
The only person who is making a Merlin release a big deal is yourself.
You commenced the process by stating that you would block a release unless it fulfilled you preconditions. This statement was grossly misleading simply because you do not have that authority. It is this majority of committers in this community of which you are only one that carry the decision on a release. Secondly, you have argued your FUD agenda using every possible avenue including threats of my dismissal from Avalon. We are not 90% on anything. I moved what is a complete, working and stable sub-system out of Merlin and into sandbox to facilitate collaboration on establishing a common platform. A lot of time has been spent addressing many aspects bringing in in-line. During that process you have launched what can only be described as an attack against me on the subject of extensions. And yet your rationalization comes down to nothing more than FUD arrising from you self proclaimed lack of knowledge. Once you actually take the time to address the technical issues - there will be the potential to reach 100%. In the meantime you have a lot of credibility that you need to recover.
All a user needs to know is that if they implement the set of Avalon tags, their
component will work accross all the containers.
Look - you said it here "All a user needs to know is that if they implement the set of Avalon tags" and yet you want to fragment that same namespace in such a way that users of will be obliged to use Avalon tags plus Lifecycle tags. This is simply indicative of the problem you are creating. Your statement reflects the impact of your suggestion - disenfranchising a core subset of a object model simply because you do not understand it.
On one hand you imply support for the meta-info model as it is - with full support for stage and extension declaration. On the other hand you claim that these features are not needed, unsupported, and you even go so far to imply that related products are not released. In the context of all of this - I have zero confidence that you will not continue this process of disruption and fragmentation into the tools and the meta-info API.
Let's start with what we know. We can add in what we don't over time.
I suggest we move @avalon.meta -or @merlin - we maintain integrity of the model. And you can sleep at night in the knowledge that your Avalon namespace is clean. In the meantime some up who are much more interested in putting together a complete and integral solution can get on with the things we like doing.
If we release the general Meta Info library with the set of Avalon tags we have
agreed to up to this point,
We haven’t agreed anything of substance. We have an AMTAGS proposal that does not meet requirements. We have you attempt to force a decision from a position of ignorance that not only is biased against the Merlin platform, but will itself lead to fragmentation and confusion.
then after we incorporate it into Fortress and Phoenix, I have no issues with a Merlin release.
More preconditions? Perhaps you could do everyone a favor and stop this ridiculous process of preconditioning. While you’re at it - could you pull back on the FUD and drop the threats. In the meantime I'm going back to things that are fun and interesting. In particular, I will continue to move Merlin forward with the support of the user community as a complete and viable solution.
Stephen.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
