On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Gabriel Roldan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Andrea Aime
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Moving forward with the discussion about the code being "proof of
> concept".
> >
> > By "proof of concept" I don't mean that the code is bad, I mean that
> it's a
> > stage
> > where it proofs the concept but it's not ready to be integrated in a code
> > based that was meant to become stable soon, simply because it's last
> minute
> > (last minute changes are rarely good) and imcomplete.
> Well, the "soon to be stable" 2.2 branch is out of the question.
> Question is whether we'll allow progress to occur in the "soon to be
> trunk" 2.3 branch, or (surprisingly) everything needs to be nailed
> down to the minimal detail to allow new development to happen on
> trunk.
>
My feedback was still based on the idea that you wanted to commit the work
on 2.2.x
I saw Justin say it would not have happened, but it I did not see you say
the
same, and you're the proponent of the GSIP, so I (wrongly) assumed you
wanted to
go on and still commit on 2.2.x
> > So in the end the same amount of work gets done in the 2.2.x series, but
> > with
> > very little scrutiny, and the proposal looks less scary because it
> changes
> > less
> > code. Seems like a trick, that's why I called it the "trojan horse".
>
> If so every iterative approach is so too.
>
Iterative on trunk is fine.
>
> >
> > Even if you "promise" not to do any of these changes in the 2.2.x series
> the
> > fact remains that these changes are getting in very late in the game,
> after
> > 3 months since I asked to start the release process and was told to wait
> > "two weeks".
> I don't "promise". I _consult_ with the PSC about the feasibility of
> getting any of this into the 2.2.x series, and obey the PSC decision.
> I don't remember having told you to wait for two weeks to get GSIP69
> in place for 2.2.x. Rather the contrary, I remember having told you
> this work was not targeting 2.2.x but a new trunk. If later in the
> game I ask the PSC what the opinion is about doing so, I don't see
> what's disrespectful about asking. If, on the contrary, I did ever
> told you to wait for two week with regard to GSIP69, I very much
> apologize.
>
You were not the one telling me to wait two weeks, Justin was.
It's the sum of having had to wait months first and then getting another
proposal in that made me snap.
Anyways, the above has been clarified already,
and if we get the timed releases proposals going we'll eradicate
the very possibility of finding ourselves in this rut again in the future.
Cheers
Andrea
--
Ing. Andrea Aime
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Tech lead
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 962313
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/GeoSolutionsIT
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
http://twitter.com/geowolf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
