> If I (or any other Turbine developer) has no real chance to influence > this, I'm afraid that at one point, some (well discussed and thought > out change, that makes lots of sense in Avalon) leaves our user base > with a broken or non-working Turbine. That's what I want to avoid.
What might be a good idea is to talk to some of the James developers. Their project, as I understand it, is completely Avalon based and yet, again, as I understand it, not many of them are active in the Avalon community itself. Their input on how the Avalon community has treated the issues they as a separate project run into would provide some beneficial, be it either comforting or discomforting, insight. Also, I lurked on Avalon-dev for awhile and will say, from what I gathered, they are sticklers for backwards-compatibility. To the point where it kills some of the initiatives they want to do with the code base. I remember specifically at least one of the committers mentioning they have many thousands of lines of production system code based on the Avalon framework, as I'm going to assume they all do, and they have no intention of breaking that willy-nilly. Also note that they've done releases of Avalon specifically in response to the needs of at least Cocoon and perhaps James, depending on how well my memory is. So they are responsive to other communities. My impression was that they really enjoy other people using their stuff and are willing to sacrifice to keep from endangering that prospect (e.g. several of the Avalon people are lurking here on Turbine as they really look forward to spreading their good word to more of Jakarta). - Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
