Danny, > Well lets get it released then, IMO the code freeze has gone on for too > long > already.
Well, hey, do you think James 2.1 might be ready to go right now (or a month ago) if any of the folks here aside from Noel and me had contributed to the tasks proposed to and agreed upon in the release plan? Just curious... There seems to be a sense from some of the folks on this list that things happen by "magic". They don't. As with all things of value, they happen because people put in effort to make them happen. You want something to happen, put in a little effort. If you don't put in the effort, don't complain. See Serge's very correct comment on the matter. > Please also note that your resistance to implementing mirroring have > attracted the intervention of Greg Stein in his role as ASF chairman, > something which I'm sure none of the longer serving commiters are > particularly pleased about, and again if it were not for the drawn out > release this could have been implemented prior or post the freeze. As far as Greg's intervention, it hardly seems in line with "the Apache Way" to quake in fear of the presence/intervention of any individual, ASF chairman or other. I appreciate Greg's POV, I'm happy to hear what he has to say, and am more than happy to discuss the issue with him. I'm sorry this sort of open dialogue doesn't please you, but it hardly seems catastrophic or even to be a major issue. My position remains basically unchanged - I don't see any reason why 2.1 should be gated by getting the mirroring right. Despite Nicola's somewhat emotional response (I was half expecting a follow-up lecture on Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons") it is neither ingratitude nor laziness that motivated my vote in response to the mirroring proposal. I'm very appreciative for the resources provided by the Apache foundation, and very cognizant of the fact that these resources cost money. But I also have some experience pricing bandwidth, and I found the tradeoff (one more thing to do before release vs. a change of doubtful financial value) to be undesirable. While I'm not going to go into a lengthy explanation of my economic reasoning here, a simple Fermi estimate of the overall percentage of Jakarta bandwidth consumed by James distribution downloads (remember, mirroring doesn't affect anything but that) should make it clear why I feel this is not a priority. It's pretty clear to me that James downloads are far on the small side of the 80/20 (or for that matter 90/10 or 95/5) rule. Considering that bandwidth is not a fungible commodity, and more importantly is not generally priced that way for larger sites, this is a rather substantial argument as to the insignificant financial impact of mirroring for James downloads. Add to that the fact that it is something that can be addressed post-release with a minimum of bother, and I still don't see why it needs to be done as part of this release process. All that said, Noel has been trying to set it up pre-release. He wants to confirm some things with the Apache infrastructure folks. If he can get a response, great (he'd been unsuccessful before last Friday). If not, I'd still like to move for a release if all the marketing channels are lined up. We can discuss that in the unlikely event Noel doesn't get a response from the infrastructure folk. In any case, I'm sorry you're not pleased, but it doesn't please me that no one save Noel/me has put in any serious effort on James 2.1 since October. Life is full of unpleasant things. I agree with you, the drawn out release is unfortunate. I am doing what I can to get it out the door. Next time around a more general effort would probably help shrink the release cycle substantially. --Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
