Jim Marino wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
I wasn't asking for an "official" policy statement on this, and
I wasn't suggesting that we stop all innovation and move into a
phase where we only work on things that were part of M1.
By releasing M1, we moved from a phase of focusing purely on
the developer community into a phase of starting to attract
potential users as well. I think we need to strike a balance
between the needs of developers and users. We met some
potential users at ApacheCon, and I expect that we will meet
more at OSCON. For now we can point them to M1, but given
our desire to focus around a single codebase that is actively
being enhanced, I would expect that we would want to be able to
start to point these people to the new codebase in the fairly
near future.
And we should. In fact, I would point them at the "new" code now, not
just in the future. That is the codebase chosen by the community. That
is our code.
If you believe the decision to adopt chianti as our code to be in error,
you are free to ask the community to reconsider, although I believe the
vote last week accurately expressed the community will (as willful an
act as it may have been ;-) ).
Of course, people can also resort to M1 if they prefer to experiment
with the .9 version of the SCA specification or features specific to
that milestone.
If history is any guide, the path that has been chosen will result in
another revolution in a year or so's time, reverting a number of
architectural decisions that have been made with this revolution.
However, not *all* will be lost as much of the additions will also have
been retained. What will have been lost is much time.
The Rules for Revolutionaries was penned in a time when Tomcat 4 was
poised to replace Tomcat 3. Tomcat 5 was the inevitable result.
Even from a developer community standpoint, I think there is
considerable value in maintaining a working base level of
functionality that can support end-to-end scenarios. This
allows developers creating new code to exercise that code in
the context of real-world usage, in addition to unit tests.
I would imagine there is unanimous agreement on this point as we are
working hard to add "real-world" functionality that interests members of
the community.
Based on your statements, it sounds as if there is functionality you
would like to see added. The somewhat, although not completely, flippant
response to this is: Thanks for volunteering!
Votes work best when the victors are understanding and gracious. This
response treads awfully near towards being rather gloating.
If you would like to see a particular set of functionality in Tuscany
you can either request it (preferably in JIRA) or develop it and submit
a patch. Depending on the importance of the feature to the community, I
suspect the latter approach has a higher probability of success in the
short-term. It is also the option I would personally prefer as it
expands the active, contributing segment of the community.
Votes in the ASF imply a level of commitment. They mean "I will stand
behind this course of action and make it work", not "Hey! I won! Deal
with it!".
If there are things that used to work in the M1 trunk that aren't yet
handled completely in Chianti, then I fully expect those that
participated in this vote to pro-actively and expediently work to close
those gaps. And with an eye towards giving the benefit of the doubt to
the codebase it replaces (i.e., no: see, it didn't handle this obscure
edge case, so the entire function wasn't fully implemented in M1, and
yes, I've been around the block once or twice).
The alternative is for the people who voted to say that the rules for
voting weren't fully explained to them, in which case, I will simply say
"my bad", and we can hold the vote again.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
