Stephen McConnell wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Thanks for the very detailed and insightful summary.
I understand your views and agree. Just one comment.
Aaron Knauf wrote:
In fact, I believe that we should be very reluctant to change james
to accomodate changes in avalon cvs unless it is clear that a stable
avalon release containing those changes will be available before the
next james release. As others have mentioned, be don't what to
block james releases.
Yes, I'm aware of this and it's fundamental. As you can see, Stephen
is working very hard to make it done sooner than later.
I'd say that intent is quite clear on both sides. Let's resolve
things one by one as they come. I personally don't think that we
should copy James stuff in avalon-sandbox, and I'm sure that Stephen
could be given time-limited karma for changes he has to make.
Stephen has modified code that can be patched on James. It seems he
really needs a hand in resolving problems, and want you all to try
the changes and see if you can help.
This can be reasonably done by tagging current James and patching
HEAD, or making a branch and tagging that.
[talking as an engineer] The best solution is to make a branch, and
give temporary karma to Stephen to be able to work on that branch. He
is free to change things, James committers can check changes, and
current James HEAD is not affected.
Stephen, James guys, what do you think?
Works for me.
In the meantime Pete Goldstein has been helping out with supplying a
version of James he has transitioned from CM to SM and that's resolved
the invinite loop problem (the principal difference here is that
Pete's version is based on HEAD).
Woops - correction!
My version was based on HEAD
Peter version is NOT based on HEAD.
Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
