On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
<snip> > > > Making a tree with 1000 simple leafs will not make developers life > easier. > > > They instead will loose much more time trying to understand what project > > > calls a given method or what project contains a given feature they want > to > > > alter/fix/test. > > > > > > > it's not about splitting into 1000 simple leafs but about factoring > > out meaningful components without complex dependencies > > > > JAMES has no problem attracting developers: every month, someone shows > > up with a particular aim or interest. JAMES has a major issue > > converting developers into committers. IMHO the problem is that JAMES > > is too big and it takes too long to understand. you've got to be > > really dedicated even to start work on it. > > > > I think - or at least thought at first - that moving IMAP out of trunk is > very unfortunate. > But let's also be pragmatic! If making trunk leaner helps us releasing, > let's do it. Let's at least _try_ it. If it doesn't work out, we revert it. > If later we want to have IMAP in as an experimental, disabled-by-default > module, ok. But that's for later. > > For now let's trust and support those who take reasonable action. > Let's not wait paralized for the branch who never comes, or the big > trunk-cleanup which everybody is too scared to do. i'd probably use fork and delete: just take a copy of trunk and then delete everything that isn't IMAP related and see how far this gets so it's initially low risk but it does means that IMAP development will have to stop in trunk till the forks either succeeds or fails... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
