Ok, probably needs a little clarity - I'll try and keep it brief as
it is a vote.
Firstly, we're not diametrically opposed on when to make people
committers, as I've tried to point out elsewhere, though we do
disagree. But that's not really the issue here, so I won't go into it
any further.
This is not a vote to make Raphaël a committer, as he has graciously
agreed to submit patches via JIRA instead of committing it to an
external codebase, until we think he is ready (and he thinks he is
ready).
This is a vote on the code though, so Jason, if you wouldn't mind
letting me know whether you are -1 on accepting that code explicitly?
Your statements seem to say as much, but I'd like it to be explicit
since it is a veto.
Please bear in mind that retaining the status quo results in one of:
- nobody else committing to archetype, or
- committers flocking over to codehaus to work there, or
- we continue to work on archetype here, and painstakingly review
whether changes still work if we do later accept the other code.
The first two are quite obviously unacceptable. We can live with the
third, but there are already changes that people want to make that
are effectively getting blocked by an understandable reluctance to do
them twice.
I've personally spent plenty of time reviewing the structure of the
code and discussing the direction and while there's plenty to do, I
feel it's worth moving forward with.
Cheers,
Brett
On 23/05/2007, at 11:38 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 23 May 07, at 8:28 AM 23 May 07, Raphaël Piéroni wrote:
+1 (But it don't really count :-))
You are the one that counts the most. I disagree with Brett about
moving this code over here right now because I don't think you're
ready, though I do see that you have the potential to be a good
contributor.
If you think that what you have is a good replacement then it's you
who has have to gauge your ability, effort and committment. No one
else can do that accurately for you except you.
Brett and I have almost the exact opposite views on making people
committers, how the project is structured and what actually makes
it a successful project.
I don't believe that you are ready to be a committer, nor do I feel
the code is ready to be put here. Don't mistake that for a lack of
respect. Anyone who is willing to volunteer their time of their own
accord working on project which is basically taken for granted by
the vast majority of users has my utmost respect. I don't do this
in order to curry the favor of anyone, I do because as an
intelligent human being I feel obligated to improve things where I
can as naive as that may sound. I am unwavering in my belief that
this is not an endeavor for the weak of heart and working on the
project like this requires fierce dedication. I also don't believe
the few can direct the actions of the many, but that the few
dedicated souls are the people that work and drive projects and
lead by example doing work. By that I mean you cannot accept the
judgement of others and when you come into this project you are
autonomous and are expected act in the best interest of the project
but continue to work as hard as you have. That's what I expect
anyway. But I'm not the only one here, I've just been here the
longest and have seen the patterns that make things work and the
things that make things not work. You will be doing yourself a
disservice by jumping the gun joining the project before you feel
you are ready.
I only say this because I have a personal interest in how you do
and the work that results from your efforts on Archetype.
Raphaël
2007/5/23, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
We need to figure out where we go next with Archetype. Raphaël has
been doing a good job adding features and patiently listening to my
feedback/nagging. It appears to me that it is very close to being as
good as what we had before (though still a long list of things to do
before 1.0).
So there is still a way to go, but we seem to be in a spot where
there is general consensus that that is the future code. Given that,
I believe it makes sense to bring it back to the maven subversion
repo, and work on it together here. I've checked with Raphaël and he
is ok with that (even if it means progressing via patches in the
short term), and I'm happy to be the one to check and apply them.
I'll also work through the paperwork with him.
If we need to make a release before it's ready, we can still re-
branch from the last release without losing anything.
All that's left to do is vote on this. I guess as a code change the
rules are 72 hour, lazy consensus, vetoable.
[ ] +1 - add to maven subversion
[ ] 0
[ ] -1 - don't add to maven subversion
I'll kick it off with +1 :)
Cheers,
Brett
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
