El mar, 30-05-2006 a las 10:03 +0200, Andreas Hartmann escribió: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I only mentioned my fork to support my ideas about improving trunk. I > > only started the fork because I was in a high-speed car accident, my > > brain was damaged, and I needed a project to prove my technical skills > > were fine. > > > > You are aware of the fork because I mentioned it in the thread about > > handling extensions. I suggested an easy algorithm, and mentioned > > that it already worked in my version. The thread continued without a > > response to my comment. > > I hope you don't feel offended by Thorsten mentioning your fork. > I don't think it was meant as an accusation, but he rather wanted > to substantiate the statement that the community needs a stronger sense > of collaboration and joined efforts. Sorry, of course Thorsten can > speak for himself :) >
Sometimes other people better express my opinion then myself. Thanks Andreas for this clarification. > > > "We cannot waste resources in having endless discussions or having > > good ideas in a non ASF fork." > > Maybe sometimes ideas need time and space to emerge and evolve outside > the main project. For instance, I have committed some things to the > trunk and reverted them later on - with the current rather sensible > state of the trunk I'd rather use a branch or temporary fork for that > and commit the concepts that have proved useful. BTW, I hope that > this state of affairs re. the meaning of the trunk will change soon. > IMO the trunk should be the place where ideas can be implemented and > tested, reviewed by the community, and reverted if they are not useful. > > > > But none of my ideas are "good". I am not part of the development > > effort because my ideas have been completely spurned. Every > > suggestion I have made about Lenya has been discarded by the other > > Committers. > > From my point of view, that's not generally because we dislike the > ideas, but because they are too far away from the current state > of Lenya. I find many of your proposals regarding the repository API > (e.g., the naming of classes etc.) very interesting and useful. > And AFAIK your improvements of the search engine are appreciated and > used by the community. > I reckon if we have a PoC (proof of concept) we will be able to see the needed changes and the resistance will vanish. > > > Most of the issues discussed on the dev list were fixed > > or avoided in my fork because I fixed the architecture. Attempting to > > pass that knowledge back to the 1.4 developers generated this > > complaint. > > > > I did not start the fork because my suggestions are disdained. I did > > not do it to hurt the project in any way. I needed to write code, and > > could use a better version of Lenya. I'm scratching my own itch for a > > few hours each week. My code and ideas are unwanted in trunk, so how > > does my private work hurt the project? > > > > I would enjoy adding a branch at ASF, but why do it? It would risk > > splitting the effort between the current 1.4 and a simpler, easier, > > more flexible version. The programmers enjoy working on the complex > > version. The users who would benefit from the easier version could > > not add value to it. The fork is probably better as my private > > project. > > Thanks for explaining this! Yes, thanks. salu2 -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
