Not really the constructive dialog I was after... On 1 April 2011 20:27, Jason Pratt <[email protected]> wrote:
> i am stating that the first "graduated" release should work for everyone > period. after that if you want to release with known bugs and reduce/not > Uh huh - what I can't understand is your logic for why that must be the case? > support sparc or whatever other platform you in your infinite wisdom deem > My infinite wisdom? I didn't say I was wise or a know it all. > irrelevant , great. river should have one release it can point at for > anyone > wanting to try/use it. > Why? What would that mean? What does that achieve? > > regarding supporting systems, if ubuntu, amd, redhat, intel, apple, etc. > don't send you equipment and software to test on, are you going to drop > support for them as well? doesn't apache have these things internally? have > you asked? > > I was asking questions to encourage discussion of a broader point, not stating a definitive position: " I don't see a proper discussion about that balance just...." > you can be as antagonistic as you like, i deal with children everyday ;-) > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Dan Creswell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Why should it be valid for everyone? > > > > So far the conversation has mostly amounted to "save the SPARC user" at > any > > cost and that cost includes "penalise all other users". > > > > Is that latter cost something we think we should be asserting? And for > how > > long? > > > > Further, if those using SPARC can't lend us a box to test on, how serious > > are they about their investment in River? Simply and brutally, they're > not > > supporting us (an opensource co-operative effort), why would we in turn > > support them? > > > > Last up, if we are to support these SPARC users and they won't provide > the > > kit, we have to obtain it and maintain it etc - how are we doing with > that? > > How well can we do that going forward? > > > > My point overall then is that there's a balance and as yet, I don't see a > > proper discussion about that balance just what would be ideal in a > perfect > > world. > > > > Yeah, I am being a little antagonistic, > > > > Dan. > > > > > > On 1 April 2011 09:18, Jason Pratt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > sparc was a key architecture when jini was being promoted, maybe not so > > > much > > > now. however, at least for a graduation release it should be valid for > > > everyone sparc included. afterwards if justified it can be phased out. > > > > > > antagonism aside, for its first release let give the masses something > > that > > > works... > > > > > > jason > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 3/31/2011 5:41 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Jason Pratt<[email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> please don't release anything with failures. i've been a big > fan/user > > > of > > > >>> jini since it was released. now that it is alive again via river, a > > > good > > > >>> release history will be key to success/survival > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Assume for a second that the failure is related to the SPARC JVM > > > >> implementation; For how long do you intend us to hold off a release > to > > > >> the other 99.9654% of the users, searching for a compatible way to > > > >> work around the problem? > > > >> > > > >> Sometimes, "known bugs" are just that. The "unknown bugs" is in most > > > >> cases a longer list, and should that also hold off a release until > we > > > >> find and correct them? > > > >> > > > >> I hope I don't come across as too antagonistic... ;-) ... just want > > > >> to provide some perspective. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Here's a key question for the future. Are there users that need River > > on > > > > SPARC? Do we go on supporting it? Does anyone care enough to make a > > > > SPARC development environment available? > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > >
