[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well, I think I have to clear few things up.
>
> I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give
> up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW.
As far as I can recall, you been saying that, but you have also
said you would stay and help maintain the 3.x code base. It's hard
to tell what your intentions are when you keep switching back and
forth.
I'm spending this weekend to go through a lot of the discussions
about this issue, compare the 3.2.1 code to the HEAD of the
jakarta-tomcat
repository, look at the CVS commit messages, and in general trying to
form an opinion about what I feel is best for the project.
One of the most important things I'm trying to get a grip on is what
the pros and cons are for the "community" (both developers and users)
if we release the current HEAD as the next 3.x version, as opposed to
continue to do bugfixes based on 3.2.1. From what I've seen so far, all
the work you and others have done since 3.2 seems to be for the better;
more structured, more comments, performance improvements, etc. But it's
a *lot* of changes, and from my limited testing it's clear that there
are new bugs introduced (no surprise, that's what happens when you do
major refactoring). This means that we need active committers that
understand the new architecture if we are going to make it the next
3.x. You can try to downplay your role in this as much as you like; the
fact remains that 90% (or more) of all commits on this version have
your name on them. So when you now say that you give up, you're making
it much harder for me to consider a 3.x based on the HEAD code. Chances
are that if you leave, the three or four other committers that have been
actively working on the refactoring with you will go with you. In that
scenario it's probably better for the community to continue the 3.x
branch based on 3.2, since it's been battle tested and therefore is
likely to have fewer bugs and it's compatible with the modifications
and additions users have done privately.
Note that I have not made up my mind on this yet, and your actions
here play a huge role in how I will argue at the meeting.
> [...]
> I don't think my presence to the PMC meeting can bring anything good - I
> think most of the decisions have already been taken, and most of the
> games done. It seems things have already been debated in productive
> closed-lists, and 1/2 of the judges are representing one side. I have a
> lot of respect for the other 1/2, but their (lack of ) open attitude
> during recent months is one of the main reasons for me wanting to get out
> of this project as soon as possible.
I take offense at this. You make it sound as if the meeting is just
for show. That's absolutely not the case. And as Jon said, all important
discussions about this have taken place in the open on this list;
there's
no conspiracy here!
I'm in favor of giving anyone read access to the PMC list if that
will improve the feeling that decisions like this are being made
behind closed doors, and I will make a motion that we add a
discussion about this to the agenda for the meeting. But for those
who really want to believe that there's a conspiracy, I'm not sure
anything helps ...
Again I can only reiterate what Jon has said in a couple of mails;
very little is being decided and done by the PMC (maybe too little).
We are all volunteers with busy schedules. It's on the developers list
the action is. PMC basically just approves new subprojects and, for
the first time ever in the upcoming meeting, resolves major issues
when it's clear that they can't be resolved on the developers list.
> [...]
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
