I closed that issue by my self and I agree with David and Mark's statements.
It's absolutely OK for me, otherwise I would not close that issue and
discuss my position in detail.
The good thing with that issue was:
- fast response on second request
- doubt on feasibility
- good alternative idea
The Bad things with that issue was:
- no real discussion within the community, only two comments (no interest?)
- an additional question via mailing list was required to start the discussion
Personally I really do not care on Thrift's origin. I would like to
use and enhance a mature piece of software driven by community under
the umbrella of Apache. Just as other projects I recommend an accept
for my employer!
- attractive license for commercial use => APACHE, BSD or Beerware;-)
- active community (spread across different companies or individuals)
- well tested and stable
- scalable and portable
- no local patches required
- available via standard distros like Debian
bye the way... I played around with hudson (continuous integration) =>
looks good!
I'm currently configuring hudson ci for Thrift at home, as soon as its
ready to use I tell you and we can set it up at apache infrastructure
if possible!
Regards
roger
Zitat von Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>:
----- Original Message ----
From: David Reiss <dre...@facebook.com>
To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 1:28:58 PM
Subject: Re: sharing knowledge means sharing control
> Too often I see issues filed
> in Thrift's jira that get turned down by Facebook
> folks without any input from non-Facebook committers.
> One way to resolve this is for the Facebook employees
> to continue to comment on these issues but to ask for
> input from other committers before closing the issue.
Joe, these comments frustrate me because the paint a negative picture of
Mark and myself that is simply inaccurate. Mark an I both pointed out
specific problems with the approach the submitter was taking and offered
alternative approaches to bypass the problems. Then the submitter
voluntarily closed his own issue. In general, I try to avoid closing
issues as invalid and let the submitter do so (as in THRIFT-692) unless
it is something obvious like a missing build dependency.
To be clear, I'm questioning the pattern of "who" makes these
decisions, not the decisions themselves. The comments I made
are meant to raise awareness of the perception problem of having
architectural decisions all being made by the same 2 people.
It was not meant to paint you and Mark in a negative light.
Sorry if it came across that way.
I think it's implied that any committer (or contributor for that matter)
should feel free to comment on any issue.
Sometimes it takes an invitation to get folks to cross that boundary.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
