On 9/15/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Dave, Sorry there was no post with the "official minutes" of the calihacky. We mostly discussed build issues which Allen has already presented to the list.
Thanks Craig and Allen for the write-ups.
One issue that we will need to discuss with the community is what we ship as the persistence back end. o Allen expressed the opinion that once we have an implementation that works well, we should remove the other implementations. Having more than one is a distraction and means more work for the developers. o Craig thinks that there is nothing wrong in keeping all the implementations that work, and community members can decide what the "out of the box" supported configurations are, but other community members might want to maintain a different persistence back end and not have to maintain a separate source tree to do so.
I don't think there is a problem with keeping the alternative implementations in Subversion, but I would want them to be separated from the main source code somehow -- and I'd want it to be clear that Roller committers are not required to maintain/support the alternative implementations. In other words, when I add some new methods to our "primary" backend implementation I don't want to have to add and test those same methods on our multiple "alternative" implementations. And if we're only actively maintaining one primary implementation, then the others will fall into disrepair perhaps having a broken windows [1] effect. - Dave [1] http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppbook/extracts/no_broken_windows.html
