On 24/05/2007, at 2:53 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I've only ever vetoed code I as working on that someone interfered with and didn't ask. I've not ever vetoed against the majority on project decisions. It's Raphael's decision really, and my only point is that people should accept when they understand what it actually means to be a part of this project, or ask when they think they are ready. They can always ask the advice of anyone on the project if in doubt. It's not like anyone has to jump into a fire.
That's why I asked him first.
Yah, I don't see the big deal until the point that everyone's happy and comfortable.
This is where I'm getting lost. Everyone seems happy and comfortable that this is the code we should be using. I can't understand why it shouldn't be here.
If you have specific objections about the code from your review of it, please let's hear them.
People can apply patches to the archetypes all they want, they have to continue to work. The core is totally different so you can't apply them twice so I don't see the problem there either.
If I fix something or add something on trunk now, I need to make sure it still exists in the future code. That's the double work, and it's a disincentive to do anything.
It's really more a matter of Raphael feeling it's worth moving forward with in conjunction with coming here as a committer which I feel is often taken too lightly.
I don't know yet whether we should just proceed anyway, but there is another option on the table: what if we bring the code into the incubator?
It doesn't solve all aspects (we still have to maintain two branches), but it does clear up everything else. Is that an acceptable option?
- Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
