Hi,
>The release process in Oak is a joke.
I don't think it's a joke.
> Releasing every two weeks by
>using version numbers as counters just for the sake of it is
>embarrassing.
Why? It's simple.
> I don't even know how many releases of our parent POM we
>have, every one of them equal to the other, and this is nonsense.
"Nonsense"... again a word without explanation.
>We shouldn't go backward, but forward.
It depends on what "backward is". I would prefer if we make things
"simpler".
> We need to extract APIs into
>their own independently released bundles.
I don't think we need to do that. The "release everything at once" sounds
good to me.
> We should split oak-run in
>different CLI utility modules
Split, split, and again split. Why? What is the advantage?
>, so that every implementation can take
>better care of their own utilities.
It's the Oak utilities. I think the current organization is just fine.
>Oak is not a pet project
Again, you are using strong words ("pet"), but without real explanation...
How is it that your definition of "pet" is the only valid one?
>and we
>have to admit that its current level of complexity doesn't allow us to
>use oak-core and oak-run as dumping grounds anymore.
Again a strong word... "dump".
I just don't see how making tiny "ravioli" modules makes things any
better. It surely makes things more complex, as we see with
oak-segment-tar: it forces to add even more and more modules, to be able
to deal with the consequences of adding modules.
Regards,
Thomas
