On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Dan Creswell <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip> > If Niclas is representative of the majority I'd be prepared to step down > and let you all have at it. Note that I don't agree philosophically (on > the remote vs local stuff) with what you're doing but as the minority > will happily step back, take a copy of the source code as it is now and > fork (because I believe the philosophical difference is too big to do > otherwise). i've been reading this list for some time now and i would like to take this opportunity to step in now (before positions get too entrenched and anyone does anything hasty) i've observed many symptoms that arise from the problem of a mature, high quality codebase. it's hard to develop a bigger and deeper community with this kind of code base. reviewing patches contributed is time consuming, and too many correct solutions require too much investment. in the long run, though, new live and ideas are almost always needed but it's hard to know which ones will really benefit the codebase until they have been explored reasonably fully in code. i doubt that a binary fork is the answer. apache does not use a benevolent maintainer model but a collegiate one. there is no need for any minority to step aside in favour of any other. i suggest allowing a variety of internal forks. providing that those developers who want to push river forward in different directions agree to work in outside trunk, it should be possible both to work on perfecting the current codebase and on experimenting in new directions. if this sounds anything like an acceptable solution to the current committers, then i can offer some suggest about ways and means to do this which have worked ok in the past here at apache. - robert
