>
> Since I'm in your "tinkerer" group because I'm following the Catalina path
> (like we agreed on), I will state that everything in your "conservative"
> group is just as important to me in the "tinkerer" group.
>
> Therefore, your distinct separation of the groups is illogical and moot.
>
Not necessarily. It's a matter of priority. Stability is more important
than features to someone going into a production-ready environment, but
both matter. Perhaps I wasn't clear about that.
> The rest of this doesn't make any sense because I just stated that your
> separation of the groups isn't defined correctly.
>
I hope I cleared up what I meant.
>
> > There seems to be enough interest in each
> > viewpoint to support 3.x and 4.x at once without bogging down the project.
>
> Actually, you are wrong here. The project is totally bogged down because
> Craig (why didn't Costin step up to the plate to do this????) is having to
> spend time doing releases on Tomcat 3.x stuff instead of working on 4.x
> stuff. If you have ever done a real live release of software, you will know
> how hard it is and how much time it takes to make sure it is done right.
>
Of course. And, having done so, I also know that saying ALL things have
equal priority (i.e. features + performance + stability + lack of bugs +
latest-and-greatest standards) will never fly. Sooner or later, you make
trade-offs. My point is that we have two groups interested (with
representatives in the developers as well as the users) who have
completely different ideas of those priorities.
All you can do in this situation is a) abandon one group; or b) do the
best you can, and divide labor to serve both, making sure you don't work
to counter-purposes by having both projects try to be all things to all
people. That's all I'm saying. This is slower, yes, I agree with you.
But since we've heard vocal support for both 3.x and 4.x from that third
community I didn't mention--the volunteers, who can work on one, the
other, or nothing if they like--I don't think a) is going to happen. We
might as well do (b) optimally instead of arguing about the costs of a
compromise already made.
regards,
kd
