Not a big fan of where this is going. I think it's best if we don't feed the trolls any more.
chris On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Glenn Rempe <[email protected]> wrote: > @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] <haml%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. > > -- 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.
