@Michael Klishin

You said : "Yesterday it was 5th time in 6 months when upgrade of Haml
2.2 broke variety of apps. All running stable versions of their
frameworks. All virtually monkey-patching free."

Funny that there are *no* bug reports from you on the HAML bug tracker
in the last six months, except for two which you filed in the last 24
hours to seemingly try to back up your inappropriate rant (one of
which, at least, has been shown to not even be a HAML bug). Were you
being hyperbolic?  Or were you just too lazy too file a report saving
up your energy for a rant?

And what exactly does "virtually monkey-patching free" mean in your
world of ultimate stability and perfect release management?

And why is it that every few months there is some controversial blowup
on some open source project mailing list that you seem to be the root
instigator of?  Here's an example.  Sound familiar?

http://bit.ly/alJWIx

"A post by Michael Klishin created quite a bit of controversy. ...
Unfortunately “the ugly” in this case is the tone of the post, which
made the author appear immature, due to the gratuitous bashing of
Rails developers."

I'm sure there are things that Nathan could do to continually improve
the HAML story.  Your post, and tone, are once again not constructive
though.

On Mar 1, 11:12 pm, Michael Klishin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ok, 24 hours later, let me try to explain the same point without anger
> about
> breaking upgrade getting in the way.
>
> HAML is a complex piece of software. Complexity mostly comes from the
> domain (ERB and other
> templating languages are complex, too, because crazy re-evaluations
> and all the fun stuff
> that comes from concatenation of what needs to be executable code
> after template compilation),
> although there are other bits that add to the outcome.
>
> Exactly because of that introducing forward-compatible features (not
> matter how small) in point releases
> of a stable branch is a _bad_ idea. As is attempts to support all the
> versions
> of all the frameworks in the world on a single branch.
>
> You can't expect people to fix their problem and send you a patch in
> 30 minutes with this
> level of complexity.
> I am sure for most of people it will take a week to wrap their heads
> around HAML internals.
> I am definitely not smart enough to just understand where side effects
> come from in the
> precompilation process in 10 minutes, write decent tests and a fix in
> another 10, and
> fire a pull request.
>
> So, given point releases can possible introduce various unexpected
> tweaks next to bug fixes you want,
> and it is not easy to solve the issue on your own, upgrading HAML
> becomes scary, every single time.
> It is that simple.
>
> And you know what people do when something is scary? They stop doing
> it. When people stop upgrading,
> it leads to fragmentation, on which even more issues feed.
>
> I would like to bring example of the RSpec team to the table one more
> time. RSpec is pretty complex
> beast, too. But that's also why it's core team was wise and they work
> on forward-compatible version
> in a completely separate repository @ github where first lines of
> README say: pre-alpha, not for stable
> versions of Rails, use it at your own peril. In contrast, HAML simply
> pushes stuff to point releases
> of what is supposed to be a stable branch. Feel the difference.
>
> Nathan explained it to me on the IRC that it is too late to start
> something like HAML 3.0 for
> forward-compatible changes, because a lot of people use 2.2 with edge
> Rails,
> and 2.3 has a few incompatible changes. Stars collide in some wrong
> way it seems.
>
> And, I apologize for being rude everybody, but changes on a stable
> branch
> get way out of hand. Yesterday it was 5th time in 6 months when
> upgrade of Haml 2.2 broke variety of apps.
> All running stable versions of their frameworks. All virtually monkey-
> patching free.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.

Reply via email to