Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
Victor and fopdevs, See below... Victor Mote wrote: Peter B. West wrote: As to the necessary conditions for committer status, Shall we take that as read, darling?* The question remains, If a another developer happens along who 1) is persuaded that alt.design is worthwhile, and 2) sees the existing properties code as a working implementation that is better, and 3) wants to work on alt.design more or less exclusively, will he/she be admitted to committer status with the - all other things being equal - now customary alacrity? Will those existing committers who are not interested in alt.design allow it to flourish in the (unlikely) event that it attracts the interest of other developers, or will the Party line, necessary as that may be considered, dictate the such a development be resisted? I have exactly one vote on such matters, so I can't speak for the whole, but as far as I am concerned, developers such as you describe are more than welcome to join the party. In the event that alt-design remains on a branch, I don't think any reasonable person could object. At the point in time that we contemplate merging to the trunk, we need to come to an agreement. In the unlikely event that we can't come to an agreement, we always have the option to fork the project. My purpose here is to avoid that if possible. BTW, I hope this isn't a Peter-vs.-Victor thing. Absolutely not. This is a question for all of the existing committers. Your response above is exactly the one I would hope to see from everyone. Incidentally, the project is already de facto forked - the purpose of integration is to bring the benefits of alt.design into the main redesign. For example, I know there are opportunities to use less memory and more speed (which you report in alt-design) in the FO tree creation. If memory serves, we are storing the URL for the fo: namespace in every FONode object, which should be replaced by an integer pointing into a table. I am very open to being educated, but I think it is fair to say that I am not persuaded on all of it yet, and I think the burden of proof lies heavily on you. Unless pull parsing is an integral part of the whole, I think the alt-design changes will be best swallowed in smaller pieces. alt.design is a complete rewrite of the front end. It could possibly be broken up and rejigged to use a standard SAX approach, but that would require major surgery, and would obviate a great deal of the advantage of doing away with the design convolution which is imposed by SAX. There is no great design rationale in the basics of the current approach to FO tree parsing. It is that way because it is obliged to be by SAX. SAX imposes itself on design, unless it is forcibly restrained, and that imposition will, IMO, always be to the detriment of the design of complex systems with a well-understood structure to their data. Clearly, that is a view that is not shared here, but it is one, which, I believe, has been and is being debated at length elsewhere. Andy Clark's NekoPull variations on Xerces XNI are an attempt to provide a pull alternative for Open Source parsing. It seems unproductive to try to debate the issue here; one either takes to it or one doesn't. Also, if pull parsing can be implemented in a pluggable, configurable way (ie. choose either push parsing or pull parsing at runtime), it will have a much better chance of being accepted. My understanding of it is that it has a pervasive effect, making separation between the modules more difficult instead of less. IMO, absent a /significant/ benefit that cannot be achieved some other way, this would be a deal-killer. Which modules? I'm not sure what you mean. The modularity of area processing? The Rec gives an utterly spurious view of this. It has been misleading developers since the drafts were first published, and giving the impression that things can be neatly modularised. Some of the persistent difficulties of design arise from this misunderstanding. However, I may be misreading you here. What modules do you have in mind? Peter -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
Le Lundi, 16 juin 2003, à 02:12 Europe/Zurich, Victor Mote a écrit : ...However, I think it is appropriate to nominate Glen Mazza for committer status +1, welcome! -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
+1 plus comments. I am happy to see new committers come into the project. I recall, however, that it took me a year to gain that status, a year during which I wrote a considerable amount of code which I maintained in my ISP account. My crime was that I did not toe the Party line. I hope those days are gone, and that, should a developer happen along who contributes to alt.design, and expresses a desire to continue to work on it, he or she will be granted committer status with the now customary alacrity. Peter Victor Mote wrote: FOP Developers: Being the greenest committer, I had hoped to defer this nomination to a more senior developer. However, I think it is appropriate to nominate Glen Mazza for committer status. He is knowledgeable and thoughtful, and I think it is in the interest of the project to turn him loose so that he can keep working without having to wait on us. -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
Victor Mote wrote: Being the greenest committer, I had hoped to defer this nomination to a more senior developer. However, I think it is appropriate to nominate Glen Mazza for committer status. He is knowledgeable and thoughtful, and I think it is in the interest of the project to turn him loose so that he can keep working without having to wait on us. +1 J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Comments (was: Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer)
Peter B. West wrote: I recall, however, that it took me a year to gain that status, a year during which I wrote a considerable amount of code which I maintained in my ISP account. My crime was that I did not toe the Party line. I hope those days are gone, and that, should a developer happen along who contributes to alt.design, and expresses a desire to continue to work on it, he or she will be granted committer status with the now customary alacrity. Sorry, I don't see much value in using pull parsing instead of push parsing either. Now if you could get footnote separators to appear in HEAD, or TR14 line breaking, or side floats... J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
Peter--I've been *trying* to contribute to your alt.design--I respond as best I can to your postings. Many of us (but by no means all) are just not yet in your order-of-magnitude of knowledge yet... Glen --- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and that, should a developer happen along who contributes to alt.design, and expresses a desire to continue to work on it, he or she will be granted committer status with the now customary alacrity. Peter __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
-Original Message- From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 16, 2003 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer Victor Mote wrote: Being the greenest committer, I had hoped to defer this nomination to a more senior developer. However, I think it is appropriate to nominate Glen Mazza for committer status. He is knowledgeable and thoughtful, and I think it is in the interest of the project to turn him loose so that he can keep working without having to wait on us. +1 And also +1. Arved - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
Peter B. West wrote: plus comments. I am happy to see new committers come into the project. I recall, however, that it took me a year to gain that status, a year during which I wrote a considerable amount of code which I maintained in my ISP account. My crime was that I did not toe the Party line. I hope those days are gone, and that, should a developer happen along who contributes to alt.design, and expresses a desire to continue to work on it, he or she will be granted committer status with the now customary alacrity. I'm going to respond to your (prior) emails in turn, but this one deserves special attention. It is not my intention to institute or encourage a policy of customary alacrity, but rather timely attention. If Bill Joy or James Duncan Davidson asked to be made committers on this project, I would vote for it today. I have an 11-year old son who wants to be a Java programmer, and he'll have to wait a bit before getting my vote. I wasn't around for the year of which you speak, and I don't know where you fall on that continuum. My only point is that the timing for Glen seems appropriate. With regard to a Party Line, please allow me to briefly philosophize. Civil societies (of which FOP development can be considered one) have both centrifugal and centripetal forces at work. In general, the centrifugal forces are that we each like to have things done our way, and the centripetal forces are an acknowledgement that we are unable to achieve the goal without help from others. If one person were able to complete a project the size of FOP, we would all be better off to delegate that task to that one person and let them do the job. We know that can't happen. We also know that if Jeremias is headed north and I am headed south, a lot of energy is expended, but not much progress is made. So, yes, there is a Party Line, a common consensus about how to get where we want to go. No, I do not want FOP rewritten in Fortran. No, I do not want FOP to output everything to RTF, then convert it to PDF. And no, frankly, I don't want the layout process pulling the parsing (until I can be persuaded of a substantial benefit). Yes, there is a Party Line, and there must be. I am at odds with certain pieces of it. In the long run, I will either 1) persuade a change in it, 2) show a working implementation that is better, 3) be persuaded myself to change, 4) live with it the way it is because it is better than alternatives, or 5) go away and do something else. That is the nature of civil societies. As long as #5 is an option, there is nothing tyrannical about it. I will address the merits of your proposals in separate messages on those threads. In the meantime, AFAIK, everyone on this team values your efforts. I am sure that no one is intentionally slighting you. I have about 20 hours a week to spend on FOP, and for my feeble brain that is just not enough bandwidth to comprehensively evaluate every proposal on the table. Victor Mote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
Any committer from Chicago? A +6 or +7 would be really fantastic right now!!! ;) Thanks, virtual team, for all the endorsements. I am painfully aware that others had to contribute far more and for a longer time to become committers--I'll work on reducing that delta over the upcoming weekends! Regards, Glen --- J.Pietschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 J.Pietschmann __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
Glen, I did notice your interest, and I appreciate it. Peter Glen Mazza wrote: Peter--I've been *trying* to contribute to your alt.design--I respond as best I can to your postings. Many of us (but by no means all) are just not yet in your order-of-magnitude of knowledge yet... -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
Victor, As to the necessary conditions for committer status, Shall we take that as read, darling?* The question remains, If a another developer happens along who 1) is persuaded that alt.design is worthwhile, and 2) sees the existing properties code as a working implementation that is better, and 3) wants to work on alt.design more or less exclusively, will he/she be admitted to committer status with the - all other things being equal - now customary alacrity? Will those existing committers who are not interested in alt.design allow it to flourish in the (unlikely) event that it attracts the interest of other developers, or will the Party line, necessary as that may be considered, dictate the such a development be resisted? Peter * John Cleese, in The Meaning of Life Victor Mote wrote: Peter B. West wrote: plus comments. I am happy to see new committers come into the project. I recall, however, that it took me a year to gain that status, a year during which I wrote a considerable amount of code which I maintained in my ISP account. My crime was that I did not toe the Party line. I hope those days are gone, and that, should a developer happen along who contributes to alt.design, and expresses a desire to continue to work on it, he or she will be granted committer status with the now customary alacrity. I'm going to respond to your (prior) emails in turn, but this one deserves special attention. It is not my intention to institute or encourage a policy of customary alacrity, but rather timely attention. If Bill Joy or James Duncan Davidson asked to be made committers on this project, I would vote for it today. I have an 11-year old son who wants to be a Java programmer, and he'll have to wait a bit before getting my vote. I wasn't around for the year of which you speak, and I don't know where you fall on that continuum. My only point is that the timing for Glen seems appropriate. With regard to a Party Line, please allow me to briefly philosophize. Civil societies (of which FOP development can be considered one) have both centrifugal and centripetal forces at work. In general, the centrifugal forces are that we each like to have things done our way, and the centripetal forces are an acknowledgement that we are unable to achieve the goal without help from others. If one person were able to complete a project the size of FOP, we would all be better off to delegate that task to that one person and let them do the job. We know that can't happen. We also know that if Jeremias is headed north and I am headed south, a lot of energy is expended, but not much progress is made. So, yes, there is a Party Line, a common consensus about how to get where we want to go. No, I do not want FOP rewritten in Fortran. No, I do not want FOP to output everything to RTF, then convert it to PDF. And no, frankly, I don't want the layout process pulling the parsing (until I can be persuaded of a substantial benefit). Yes, there is a Party Line, and there must be. I am at odds with certain pieces of it. In the long run, I will either 1) persuade a change in it, 2) show a working implementation that is better, 3) be persuaded myself to change, 4) live with it the way it is because it is better than alternatives, or 5) go away and do something else. That is the nature of civil societies. As long as #5 is an option, there is nothing tyrannical about it. I will address the merits of your proposals in separate messages on those threads. In the meantime, AFAIK, everyone on this team values your efforts. I am sure that no one is intentionally slighting you. I have about 20 hours a week to spend on FOP, and for my feeble brain that is just not enough bandwidth to comprehensively evaluate every proposal on the table. -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Nomination of Glen Mazza as committer
Peter B. West wrote: As to the necessary conditions for committer status, Shall we take that as read, darling?* The question remains, If a another developer happens along who 1) is persuaded that alt.design is worthwhile, and 2) sees the existing properties code as a working implementation that is better, and 3) wants to work on alt.design more or less exclusively, will he/she be admitted to committer status with the - all other things being equal - now customary alacrity? Will those existing committers who are not interested in alt.design allow it to flourish in the (unlikely) event that it attracts the interest of other developers, or will the Party line, necessary as that may be considered, dictate the such a development be resisted? I have exactly one vote on such matters, so I can't speak for the whole, but as far as I am concerned, developers such as you describe are more than welcome to join the party. In the event that alt-design remains on a branch, I don't think any reasonable person could object. At the point in time that we contemplate merging to the trunk, we need to come to an agreement. In the unlikely event that we can't come to an agreement, we always have the option to fork the project. My purpose here is to avoid that if possible. BTW, I hope this isn't a Peter-vs.-Victor thing. For example, I know there are opportunities to use less memory and more speed (which you report in alt-design) in the FO tree creation. If memory serves, we are storing the URL for the fo: namespace in every FONode object, which should be replaced by an integer pointing into a table. I am very open to being educated, but I think it is fair to say that I am not persuaded on all of it yet, and I think the burden of proof lies heavily on you. Unless pull parsing is an integral part of the whole, I think the alt-design changes will be best swallowed in smaller pieces. Also, if pull parsing can be implemented in a pluggable, configurable way (ie. choose either push parsing or pull parsing at runtime), it will have a much better chance of being accepted. My understanding of it is that it has a pervasive effect, making separation between the modules more difficult instead of less. IMO, absent a /significant/ benefit that cannot be achieved some other way, this would be a deal-killer. Victor Mote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
