Steve Brewin wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin [mailto:[email protected]] wrote on: 17 > August 2009 10:52 > >> IMO it's not possible to bind future decisions by a past vote. at any >> time, any committer can force a vote by -1'ing a particular code >> change. so, any decision to use guice only really happens when the >> code is committed without a -1. similarly, this vote does not mean >> that committers in the future can't use some other injector or >> container a try: what matters is whether the particular code changes >> are -1'd or not. >> >> FWIW providing that there are developers willing to port james to >> guice, i'm happy for them to give it a try. if it works then i'd be >> happy to see trunk move to it. >> >> - robert > > I agree with Robert's logic. As the rules stand we vote on the quality of > delivered code, rather than statements of direction. But without a statement > of direction we are in stasis.
+1. This DI/Avalon/container discussion is going on for ages. So I welcome this vote is a manifestation of our consens (depending on how the vote ends) to go into one direction and not every other or none at all. It's also a clear sign to everyone interested in the project. > So, > [+1] To move forward with a proof of concept (POC) sandboxed cut of trunk > which uses Guice for CDI > [-1] for accepting the POC as the way forward without reviewing the results > [+100} for people to take this on > > The last being by far the most important. I don't see how this is binding us to anything. This is a reversible decision. It's a strategy. It's not a rubberstamp of any commit or release. And I don't see how anyone could think this could be implied by the vote. Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
