Henning, As so far the discussion was carried on the list, invoking the interest of the project and of all related people, I will reserve my right to carry on this discussion here. Also, the discussion must be public as it might interest other people too, as, in my opinion, it reveals some concerning thinks about how this project is going.
What I'm concerned about is creating precedents - precedents for breaking rules under false arguments. Maybe other "can live with this", but I do not. And to prove this, I will just ask you some simple questions (there are rhetorical questions, no need to answer): 1) it is true that the all of the reasons invoked in the first place (as against the commit I did) proved to have no technical base (there is no need for re-design or architectural re-work or any other major change) ? 2) it is true that some people preferred to point burning fingers and start polemical discussions instead of clearly pointing out whatever technical change they considered was needed? 3) it is true that the required technical changes were actually minor and they were a 2 hours maximum job and they could have being done Friday without a special need to mess with the release schedule 4) it is true that the so called decisions to re-open the SVN after freeze in against the existing rules of the project? 5) it is true that the principals actually invoked in the discussion were actually irrelevant - as now, when I opened a separate thread to build a more strict set of rules to govern the SVN work, there is no input? And also if you considered on day enough for collecting opinions on re-opening SVN, I also could consider one day enough and consider the rules I suggested as accepted. I hope you see my point - there were some twisting and forcing of the rules and common-sense that ruled so far the project. And this creates a dangerous precedent in the project. We can all start exploiting different lacks or technical misunderstanding to get over the project rules and to impose whatever an individual wants. Regards, Bogdan Henning Westerholt wrote: > On Tuesday 10 June 2008, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > >> [..] >> > > Hi Bogdan, > > >> 1) major design issues and architectural reasons are invoked just to >> mislead people around and delay the freeze - and now the only changes >> are about enabling the local_route for more certain >> modules...hmmm...This looks like pushing arguments for one thing and >> actually doing something else at the end. >> >> 2) waste of time - these changes could have been done last Friday if >> somebody would have said it clear - it is a task that takes maximum one >> hour. >> > > Technically speaken there is no huge difference if this changes were done on > friday or today/ tomorow, if you don't consider the freeze date. As i said > before, Daniel want to do some adaptions for local_route, and for this a > minor exception is IMHO ok given the late commit of this feature. The waste > of time also results from the extensive discussions we've done on this list. > > >> 3) the whole discussion about the initial commit was about principals >> and how each opinion matters for the project - now, based on three >> people opinion, the SVN is partially un-frozen without no prior >> notification about this decision. Are only three developers in this >> project? >> > > Take a look at the thread "1.4. not freezing tonight", were it was discussed. > They are of course more developers in the project, but this three were the > only one that replied in the last days. So i think the other ones don't care > that much if the freeze was last friday or is in the next days after Daniel > finished his stuff. Even you've said that its ok if there is a slight delay, > although if you don't think its a good thing. > > >> 4) changes started to be done, but without no prior consultation on the >> matter - if I'm not wrong this was the main invoked reason for this >> whole discussion..... >> >> again , I do not like this because some serious disrespect for the >> people working here in this project. >> > > I don't want to show disrespect to anybody, if this had happened, i'm sorry > about that. What i'm trying to get is some compromise were anybody can live > with, including you and Daniel. My priority is get this release as best as > possible out of the door, nothing else. > > Instead of discussing this over and over again without (IMHO) any real > progress and also more wasted time and hurt feelings, we should try to get > back to the actual agenda, like bugfixing and testing the release. After > Daniel has done his outstanding adaptions the freeze will be in full effect. > > If you see still a need for discussion then perhaps you can just give me a > call, this should be much more efficient than writing long mails. I can also > organize a phone conference for tomorow with the involved parties if there is > interest. > > Henning > > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.openser.org http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
