On Mar 1, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > I understand the workflow you are suggesting - cut down the size of the > existing framework and then switch to something else. In an ideal world we > could do that. Unfortunately, we have a lot of committers who believe more is > better, so while we're cutting down in one area, someone else will be adding > code in another area.
Yes, I know what you mean: I still think that, if the goal is clear and the strategy makes sense (e.g. "simplify/standardize the tools used, for example migrate everything from bsh to groovy, and then slim down the current framework to the bare minimum technologies used by the official applications in order to simplify and renew the code base") we could try to work to get a majority approval and a shared strategy and then everyone will have to stick to the plan and help to implement it... i.e. working as a community rather than as individual with commit rights and different visions. Jacopo
