Bernd Fondermann wrote:
On 10/4/06, Joachim Draeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
It's like every time at the James project. A proposal is done, some
discussion raises up. If a "religious" architecture topic is hit like
"too much protocol dependent" there is a lot of discussion for a short
time.
The problem is discussion hibernates without a result.
[..]
Proposals are just proposals, bases for discussion.
If you leave the discussion out, you run a much higher risk of getting
vetos, because people tend to not object things they were involed with
early on. That's a psychological fact.
As I said many times in past, the problem is not discussion: the problem
is unfinished discussions. Taking part of a discussion and arguing one
committer proposal have to be taken with much more responsibility. I
really don't like when people say I don't like this, this should be done
so and so and then never reply to techcnical questions made after that
sentence. This is a style that blocks development at all.
So once someone made a proposal, started a discussion and the discussion
end in nothing done I think that the best approach is the one Joachim
followed: just start working alone of that thing a simply make it work!
Discussing a concrete thing is much better than discussing something
that does not exists.
Thanks to this approach we now have an almost working IMAP server: if
Joachim waited months for us to discuss a new repository interface and
agree and implement it we would have nothing now.
Instead we have something working and we can now look at it and propose
refactorings.
Of course this approach has risks: you may develop something that will
be rejected. But most time when you develop something is because you
need it. So either way you have to create something as the first goal,
then try to make it land on the James project as the second goal.
Kudos to Joachim because I think he found "the perfect path" for
reintroducing IMAP in our codebase: he's code does not need code changes
on our main codebase and it works.
What I had in mind, in fact, was to re-animate the discussion, to
bring it forward and collaborate with you on the topic. (Your current
code is not available on the project, so I cannot comment on this.
Former comments suggested to me there were substantial changes since
July.)
I am just interested in understanding what you are actually doing, not
to blocking anything.
Bernd
There is a lot on what is going on in Joachim's website and his svn
repository: now that Joachim is a James Committer he can commit it to
trunk and keep up with development directly on our repository. This way
we can collaborate much better on the evolution of IMAP.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
