Hi,
I think there is something substantial going wrong. We are loosing our
main code comitter, and I guess many people are feeling insecure, like I
do at the moment. We have to prevent that!
IMHO it is not Stefano's turn to make a decision if, how, and when he
wants to start committing again. It is our (incl. Stefano) part to
clarify things. For the lurkers like me, to contribute to discussion and
for the committers to make decisions.
Of course everyone of us has the ideal that everything is working with a
seeming automatic consensus. Some (maybe smaller) projects work magical
like that.
But is no shame when it doesn't, we only have to deal with that. I guess
this is due to the fact that there are many strong characters around,
which is an advantage.
Many times an idea has been brought in, a discussion about the general
procedures in the project has been started. That is very unsatisfying.
Shouldn't there be a technical discussion first, to led the idea grow?
The problem is that there are uncertainties about the general procedures
in the project.
There aren't only the two "feature/refactor" and
"conservative/stable/norisk" positions. There are many different
positions about "review than commit", "commit than review", "make a
branch", "propose on jira", "stop working on features in favor of
release", "first make a roadmap" and so on. At the moment bringing in an
idea means starting again this discussion and the idea gets lost. That
is very sad and is not doing justice the efforts being made.
The only solution I can think of at the moment is to publish project
guidelines. And this is best practice in many commercial projects.
And this should happen fast. To avoid endless discussions set a time
limit and vote.
I'm not talking about a big document. Complementary possibilities for
refactoring:
1. "we don't want refactoring in stable code"
2. "code that is subject of greater refactoring should be covered by
unit tests"
3. "for greater refactoring a patch should be applied to jira, after a
technical discussion committers vote for inclusion"
So everyone knows the terms before he starts voluntary work.
And of course those rules shouldn't be a constitution. They should
represent consensus, get changed and there should be exceptions.
The whole problem is endanger the future of James more than a later
release of 2.3.0xy.
Just my point of view as an observer.
Joachim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
