ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM" <ru...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Proposed Revolution: AntEater (a proposal for Ant Core 2.0)
Date Tue, 14 Nov 2000 03:47:10 GMT
Conor MacNeill wrote:
>
> If I look at the revolution in Tomcat, I can see that it is still a
source
> of much tension in the tomcat-dev list. A revolution provides an
opportunity
> to split the community. We should only have that if it is really
necessary.
> If we have a revolution and everyone moves over to work on it, then why
have
> a revolution :-) ? If we have disagreement then yes, a revolution may be
> required.  Perhaps we should wait to see whether these is such
disagreement.
> From the list you posted, I feel there will be broad agreement.
>
> What do you think?

In Duncan's original use of the term, it was as compared to "evolution", or
the continual, incremental accumulation of code.

Think of the term "revolution" from the perspective of the code, not the
players.  A revolution occurs when the original code base is set aside and
a new one is established.  If all of the committers agree, so much the
better.

I tend to think of myself as an evolutionist, but I must admit that
periodic revolutions seem to be a part of the natual course of software
development in an open source environment.

- Sam Ruby


Mime
View raw message