Ruben, please allow me to add a couple of remarks:
> Just to clarify, and please bear in mind I don't wish to add more controversy > to this, my complaint is not about taking feedback from two fellow > developers; I certainly welcome that or otherwise I wouldn't have created the > review in the first place. My complaint was about we have identified an issue > which we had the solution for, but no one was willing to commit a patch for > it. It was not about time or difficulty, it was about will, and we were > williingly refusing to make our system backwards compatible. Despite of what > I said, I 100% agree with the sentence "Fixing things locally is certainly > the worst of all options", but that's exactly what we were forcing adopters > like Rute Santos to do. I'm sorry if I find that unnerving, but that's how it > is. I do agree with most of what you are saying. I just don't think it is accurate that we are willingly refusing adding backwards compatibility. As usual, it is about time, resources and priorities and the knowledge that missing pieces will be added eventually, as soon as they climb up on people's priority lists. There is a million things to improve in Matterhorn, and backwards compatibility is only one of them. In the end it went exactly the way it should have (in my opinion): Something was missing from Matterhorn, and an adopter (Rute from Harvard) provided a patch on list. That patch is now being reviewed, sees adjustments where needed and then makes its way into the codebase. I can't see how this could have been any better (other than implementing everything in the first place, of course, but that is - unfortunatley - in most cases an unrealistic assumption to begin with). > As I already said, I got carried away in that email and I said some things I > didn't feel, out of frustration. I know that's not an excuse, and I apologize > for my harsh words. Please dismiss that last remark about "fixing things > locally" because I didn't really feel it, and rest assured that whenever I > know how to fix or improve any part of the codebase, I'll always make that > available to the community. At least, that's what I've always tried to do > since I joined Opencast and, despite the words I said before (which I deeply > regret), I'm not planning to change that. Sounds good! Opensource is not only about freedom, sometimes it involves a decent level of frustration because things one relies on move in different directions than anticipated or - even worse - things don't move at all. We have all been there and as long as we find our way back... Tobias _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
