On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Dave Brosius <dbros...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd vote for putting down the paint brushes temporarily and consider the > bike shed done. > > Let's get 1.0 out, and then folks can work on 1.1 while getting feedback > from users, etc. > But is the painting considered for 1.1 in risk of breaking BC? If yes, we need to keep talking or accept that the next release would be a BC-breaking 2.0. Both are fine with me, we just need to agree on a road-map. Gary > > --dave > > --- > <br type="_moz" /> > > > > > On 2016-10-06 11:10, Gilles wrote: > >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:04:43 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> >>> Le 5/10/2016 à 18:01, Gilles a écrit : >>> >>> There hasn't been any repository activity concerned >>>> with the above reports or other such new features. >>>> >>>> Were there unanticipated problems? >>>> >>> >>> Just lengthy (and not yet finished) discussions :) >>> >> >> Well, you started them. >> >> And they were on issues[1] supposed to be left for after >> 1.0; and the LCG could have been added to a 1.1 release >> (had I known that those discussions would pop up). >> >> I'm still working on >>> the LCG. >>> >> >> OK, but I'd like to know where we stand in terms of schedule >> (given that, with a very comfortable margin for review, the >> intended functionality[2] could have been released at least >> 3 weeks ago[3], if not much earlier[4]). >> >> Hence, could you please be more specific? >> From the above I could only infer that it could take at leat >> another week (to run the stress tests and update the user >> guide). >> >> >> ===== >> Warning: rant follows; those who are not willing to help >> clear the atmosphere of the Commons project[5] are welcome >> to stop reading at this point. :-) >> ===== >> >> Since, on the PMC-private list, I've been accused of personal >> attack (which I deny[6] because the incriminated passages were >> in fact a reminder that one could not actually search for >> "consensus"[7][8] when not taking the other's POV into account), >> I'm obliged to stress that silently breaking an agreement is >> something which one can rightfully consider as an attack. >> >> ===== >> Defusing statements follow (which you should be read before >> dismissing the above as an overly sensitive reaction). >> ===== >> >> I assume that the attack was not intentional; we work on a >> best-effort basis. >> However, because we are _all_ working on a best-effort basis, >> "agreement" must mean something. >> Too often, what seemed to be an agreement turned out to be >> more akin to a decoy[9]; this is _my_ feeling, thus not an >> attack on anyone! >> >> Do I need to stress that such a feeling is not nice, >> especially in a place where "community" spirit is so >> touted?[10] >> >> When everything goes smoothly and everybody is of the same >> opinion, then it is easy to go by the "community over code" >> mantra. You obviously don't even need it. >> When there is divergence, it takes a lot more than saying >> the "c7s" word for it to transform into reality.[11] >> >> I'd suggest that people make some introspection into what >> "community over code" could mean so that it actually helps, >> rather than hinders, cooperation.[12] The obvious sense which >> one could infer from the phrase may indeed not be the most >> effective towards that (IMO) worthy goal. >> >> Thanks for your attention, >> Gilles >> >> [1] Largely stemming from your misunderstanding of the intended >> scope of "Commons RNG". >> [2] Which I assumed was trivially inferred from the decisions >> taken within Commons Math (namely "pure Java" and the like). >> [3] http://markmail.org/message/ymt43f3ajqm25vkk >> [4] A big part of that code has actually been available for >> review since last March (albeit within development branches >> of Commons Math), and the issues being dealt with takes back >> to December 2015 (more than 9 months ago). >> [5] A state of affairs that has made people leave, whatever the >> (real or perceived) reason. >> [6] The ML archive is rather full of attacks against me (having >> been depicted as dismissive, stubborn, a sloppy coder, down >> to plainly stupid). >> [7] Only Stian made some constructive step by spelling out the >> pros and cons of "modules vs projects". >> Yet nobody else seems interested to take that as input and >> consider the _realistic_ scope of "Commons RNG" in order to >> reach a conclusion. >> [8] More on this in that other thread... >> [9] With the consequence that I had been lured in doing actual, >> often tedious, work (for the sake of consensus) even when I >> had deemed it useless; and turned out to be so, in many cases. >> You can thus guess that, over the years, I was less and less >> amenable to accept such "consensus" (whenever one-sided >> "bargain" would have been a more appropriate description). >> [10] Nobody finds it surprising that, in foreign policy, such a >> behaviour can lead to war; so why would it be surprising >> that it can poison the atmosphere in other areas too? >> [11] It takes at least figuring out why some code is as it is; >> some "code archeology" would have provided many answers >> without the need to bring, again, the issues to the ML. >> [12] Cooperation is certainly not letting someone work for 9 >> months, not answering any of his requests for comments, and >> after all the code has been designed alone, and shown to be >> consistent, robust and correct (through almost 100% coverage, >> consolidation of the existing unit tests, and passing the >> most stringent test suites), start criticizing it based on >> personal taste. >> >> >>> Emmanuel Bourg >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
