Le Mercredi 15 Novembre 2006 21:56, Sylvain Beucler a écrit : > Hi, > > More than once I and Mathieu have disagreed on what to implement in > Savane and how to do so. This usually led to discussions that did not > reach a consensus and took lots of time. > > I would like to avoid feeling completely constrained by the thought of > such discussions and refusals whenever I think about improving Savane, > hence I'd like to start a branch where ideas will be implemented and > tried so as to be later discussed on solid ground, and rules reduced > to minimum. > > I think it would be appropriate to place it in the Savane repository, > given that we still share a lot in common about free software > philosophy and web design, although I wouldn't mind storing code > somewhere else if need be. > > Is it ok?
No. I am against any attempt to branch that have no clear focus and no deadline for merge. I dont support fork approach, I think it is a waste of time and I refuse Savane to take this path. If I take into account how many lines of code were written by each developers of Savane these last years, I think I am perfectly entitled to set rules to frame the future of Savane. Since four years I am employed by CERN severals month per years to work on Savane. I am committed to make Savane continue to be developed in the current way that satisfies plainly CERN, CERN which as of today is the only direct financial contributor to Savane. Forks and inconsistent developments contradict this commitment. I'd like to remind that my first job at CERN was precisely to fix the numerous problems caused by such forking approach. Morever, and that's important, I'd really like you to point out "to discussions that did not reach a consensus and took lots of time". What are you talking about, exactly? You start your mail by "More than once I and Mathieu have disagreed on what to implement in Savane and how to do so" but I have not a damn clue what you are referring to. If I take into account heavy developments made by Tobias this year, on topics that required some discussions before, I think the current path is not a real constraint. The other week, I had to deal with your very disappointing idea that somehow it was not necessary for you to open a damn task to warn that you intended to create a branch. I frankly cannot believe that. I cannot believe that is too much to ask to create a damn item that explain what you intend to do and when it will be ready to be merged. I set you as project administrator because I felt you being capable of doing the right thing. Now, if very basic workflow management is too much too ask, I was wrong - is there any software development corporate environement where developers goes random and starts doing commits with the rest of the team not having a clue what it is about. Now, if you feel that a good software can be done with inconsistent development choices, I was wrong. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think one of the reasons of the fact that kernel Linux is good is the fact that it strongly ruled. You complained about the fact that there was too much traffic on savane-dev because of the trackers. So I created the list savane-trackers. I dont think there was even one patch rejected in the Savane history. I even remember having applied patch I felt useless, because they were not doing harm. - Dont tell me it is too hard for you to understand why a backend script should have its name beggining with the prefix sv_ like any other script part of the backend. - Dont tell me it is too hard for you to understand how useful could be a task that describe what a branch is about - Dont tell me it is too hard for you to understand that creating a function that does exactly the same as another function raise questions So please give me a break. This way too childish. I'm sure you are more clever than that. I understand you did not liked feeling patronized because I pointed mistakes you did. Now move on, accept the fact that you could have do things otherwise. Rules are the most basic thing of any collaborative work. Well, anarchist beg to differ but I'm still waiting too see anarchy dealing with contradiction. So please, be wise and accept the damn rules. Or at least, describe which rule you think is unwise. That wont takes you more time than you took to write this email. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy | Not everybody on earth is native english speaker, keep cool :) | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english _______________________________________________ Savane-dev mailing list Savane-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
