on 1/15/01 2:15 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No. What I am saying is that as a group, we choose to go in a certain
>> direction and voted on it (with zero -1's).
>>
>> Let me refer you to this link (again):
>>
>> <http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195>
>
> You can also try reading:
>
> http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
>
> To quote:
>
> 2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
> merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
> whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
> potentially replace the, trunk. Suggestions may be made, changes may be
> required. Once all issues have been taken care of and the merge is
> approved, the new code becomes the trunk.
One of the agenda items for the meeting will be to discuss whether or not
the Jakarta PMC adopts this document. So far, it isn't officially adopted.
> Is the mail you are pointing on the announcement that Catalina is "ready
> for prime time" ? It looks like a repetition of the original proposal that
> Craig submited one year ago ( i.e. "Tomcat.Next").
It was a proposal on what to do next. Which is what this discussion is all
about.
> Was the discussion that followed "the community evaluating whether or not
> the code is ready to become part of ..." ?
Huh?
>> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
>> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that
>
> Besides the people who were working on Tomcat4, the only commiters that
> voted +1 are Duncan and Hans.
So what? According to the rules, it takes 3 +1 votes and zero -1 votes.
Tell me Costin, why didn't YOU vote?
Please answer this as I have yet to see you state your reasons in public and
I would just love you to air your reasons.
> Also Alex, who withdrawled his -1 saying ( if you read his mail ):
>
> " True enough; my point was simply that people who want 2.3, but don't
> want to change to Catalina, won't have to (since Tomcat 3.x will
> support the latest and greatest specs too)"
>
> Are you saying that a proposal that got 6 commiter votes ( which happen to
> be the full PMC, except Sam, plus Remy ) are representing the whole
> project ?
I'm stating that, according to the rules, the proposal received enough +1
votes and zero -1 votes and that does indeed make it valid.
This isn't a democracy based on popular vote.
> Are you saying that the proposal meant to replace 3.x with 4.0 ? When 4.0
> was still 6 months away from alpha ?
Nope. I didn't say that.
> Since that didn't looked like " Catalina is ready, we have facts to show,
> not only words " - no, I didn't, and it seems at that time very few people
> were interpreting that proposal the way you imply now. I din't - it was
> just a repetition of what happened in December 99 - and calling it
> ".next" didn't worked too much then, the same for calling it "4.0" now.
>
> Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> better" ?
Nope. I don't.
But, if you phrase your question according to what the proposal was
suggesting in the first place, I would agree with it.
> How many of you can name the fundamental differences between
> tomcat3 and catalina and explain why one choice is better ( not to mention
> that tomcat3.3 supports valves ).
What does that have to do with anything?
> How many spent time reading 4.0 and 3.3 and believe that 4.0 is indeed
> simpler, better or faster ?
I do.
> And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
> 3.x and started working on 4.0 ?
What does that have to do with anything?
> Does it looks like a "project decision" ?
Yes. There were no -1 votes and more than 3 +1 votes.
> Yes, this is supposed to be a community effort - and it has been so far.
>
> Costin
Right. Because you haven't been acting like part of the community.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
