On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:37:20 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Oct 12, 2016 4:17 PM, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:44:26 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Oct 12, 2016 3:34 PM, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 22:48:49 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 12/10/2016 à 18:45, Gilles a écrit :
So, what you say in substance is that you'd rather _wait_ for
someone to come by who will want to work with you on 3.x, rather
than continue with people, here and now, a work (CM4) that
started more than 3 years ago.
To be clear, I have no plan to maintain CM 3. I applied a small
to CM 4, I just thought it would be nice to backport it if ever a
3 release is required. That's all.
That backport served as an example that could lead to a broader
reflection on the future of a project and the "community" around
it; but you ignored it, again, by expressly cutting that part of
I'm doing open source mostly for fun, my motivation is to help
something useful to others, and if a fixed CM 3 makes someone
then so am I.
I am sad that those one-shots gives the false impression that
CM3 (or CM4) is alive.
Some people here could have the project to maintain CM3; even
if I'd prefer that they would work on CM4, they are of course
free to decide where they want to contribute.
However, I find it extremely uneasy that there is no roadmap
whatsoever; only criticism of what I proposed.
Is that fix worth a CM 3.7 release?
If not, and nobody works towards a release, what did the
reporter actually gain?
Sometimes, a user just wants a bug fix in an easy to apply release.
liveliness of the project switches state as soon as the fix is
Release notes can warn that new features are only happening on the
branch. If I get a bug fix I am happy ;-)
This is all fine, in "theory". But:
* Who is going to _make_ a release for each applied patch?
Speaking here only about 3.x...
Whomever feels like it! :-) We do not have ownership as you well
know. I do
not have a need for a patch today and I do not foresee needing one,
would certainly not be shy about cutting an RC if I needed one.
* Why this fix and not the other ones reported on JIRA?
It's up to the volunteer that steps up, with reasonable feedback from
peanut gallery :-)
* If a release should be considered only after all reported
issues have been examined, who is going to do that work?
Where is the roadmap?
We do not need a roadmap for 3.x fixes IMO.
For 4.x, the answer is the same as it has always been, we discuss on
ML. How else would it happen? At an Apache conference or meetup I
What is the added value of this project if there is no
decision to move forward?
As I indicated a few months ago, the code sits there; and
the more time passes, the less it will attract new
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org