I don't think anyone, and certainly not I, is arguing that wiki and ticket messages are somehow less important, only
that they are different, and perhaps viewed at different times or in different ways.
Just as those that prefer mail clients heavily use folders to sort their mail, I've found RSS readers to be a great way
to track different types of discussions or sites. I've found it productive personally to only use email for things I
need to respond to, i.e. interpersonal discussions. I keep my inbox completely empty and rarely use folders.
On the other hand, for my day job, I use the RSS feed from Trac to follow a project's "Timeline", or history of commits,
ticket updates, and wiki changes. Since 95% of the time I don't need to respond, the RSS approach works well.
My point is we need to keep an open mind, and allow people to use whatever tools or approaches they find most valuable.
This WebWork merger is bigger than a merging of code, but also one of people, development styles, project directions,
etc. We need to make an extra effort not to try force everyone to do it "our way" or reject new ideas or styles
outright. I'm not saying anyone is doing that currently, but we must be extra vigilant to protect against it.
If Struts is going to be accepting of what some would call two opposite web framework approaches, we should also be
tolerant, even encouraging, of different personal ideas, approaches, and perspectives.
</sermon> ;)
Don
Ted Husted wrote:
On 1/17/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to see a compromise where I could sign up for mailing list that only
contains
discussions, yet track tickets,
wiki updates, and commits via RSS. This discussion-only mailing list could be
a second
mailing list that just
automatically filters out undesired messages.
I guess what I don't understand is why relay one via RSS and not the other.
The mailing list discussions may be free-form, but that does not make
them more or less valuable than the discussions we have through the
issue ticket, wiki, and repository logs.
Wendy updates the release plan, and through the wiki log automatically
discusses her changes with me and with the rest of us. Craig commits
and automatically discusses what he just did and what he's going to do
next. Looking over the issue tickets, every third or fourth turns into
a discussion. Sometimes the discussion is: "Got a problem or a patch",
followed by "Fixed", but that's a discussion nonetheless.
What bothers me most is the implication that just because these logs
are being forwarded from the issue tracker, or repository, or wiki,
they are somehow less valuable than a free-form message. In practice,
I'd say the opposite is more likely to be true. The *real* development
decisions are being made on the tickets and in the commits. It's only
the odds and ends that we discuss here.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
