ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <dun...@x180.net>
Subject Re: Whoa Bessie... Was -- Re: [Proposal] AntFarm
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:57:27 GMT
On 12/18/00 3:31 AM, "Peter Donald" <donaldp@apache.org> wrote:

>> Ok, so that makes how many?
> 
> keep reading I just checked another one in ;)

I noticed.

> Agreed to a certain degree. I think both of our porposals suffered a little
> from a lack of perception. Both were just next-generation ants with a
> different architecture. They did not challenge any established ideas - they
> merely crystalized them.

Hence the thought of picking back up the spec and making it fit what some
are asking for -- a formal project proposal.

> If the different proposals came from people who have long been contributors
> to ant-dev then I think there would be cause for concern but maybe not now
> - thou I am not sure. I guess it depends on what the other proposers think ;)

I think that there's a lot of code and that nobody could evaluate it. Which
is why, as I read this thread and see what people are saying, that I'm about
to sit down tonight and write a project proposal, then a spec.

> I am not really comfortable with the concept of "ownership" as such. I much
> prefer ego-les/owner-less coding. If I had an option I would strip all
> author tags from codebase - but I know that would never work in an
> opensource project where your pay is seeeing your name in the credits ;)

Ego-less Owner-less code is hard to do unless it's really something that is
well understood or big enough to be collectively "owned". We have to respect
what it is that drives open source development -- Currency of a kind. Not
necessarily money, but other kinds of currency.

> I suspect this will change with Ant when tasks can
> more easily be hosted outside apache and the committers act more like
> architects - but who knows ;)

The original vision of Ant would be that there would be quite a few tasks
hosted outside of the project.

Of course if we behaved like architects, we'd write specs and proposals --
which is what I'm going to go do tonight.

> Perhaps - thou I think that similar ownership can be aquired in Apache if
> that is what you want. I am a little familiar with Cocoons developement.
> While all the committers had equal rights under the system it was led for
> all intents and purposes by Stefano. Stefano had the vision and effectively
> the control over what came of different suggestions. This started to change
> (last I noticed Giacomo was the psuedo-leader) but very little (if
> anything) would get past that Stefano didn't approve of. I am not sure if
> this is what you mean by ownership but there is one example ;)

That's pretty much what I meant... NetBeans and Mozilla have "Module
Maintainers" or something like that which are responsible for this.. That's
about what I'm talking about.

> Perhaps - but in the time you left ant it changed. I believe Mymidon is
> faithful to how Ant is now - however you have indicated that ant now is not
> what you want it to be.

Right. Or maybe not. Ant didn't necessarily change a whole lot. But there is
unfinished business there that I'd like to finish.

> It may be just me but I would prefer cooperation and merging till we have
> combined best bits of all proposals.

So maybe we should talk about how it can work, and then code follow?

> I would dislike it if anyone felt they couldn't hack mymidon as much as
> they want. I don't like the idea of their being one person sticking out -
> it is as much mine as it is the rest of ant-dev. While I may have been
> original architect it was all in direct response to ant-dev/ant-user
> requests. I would love it if someone/somepeople else took over and/or
> wanted to hack at it ;)

I'm not saying that people shouldn't hack on it -- just that there is one
person -- a module owner/maintainer -- that is responsible for the end
product.

> While I respect your desire to protect/own the name Ant - I
> don't think I would be comfortable with one proposal being auto-blessed as
> ant and another not.

A project lead, to use a respected industry term for module maintainer,
makes those sorts of calls.

> Nope they are important. But I guess this is where the real issue lies. I
> don't mean to offend you or anything but I never considered you "owner" of
> Ant. Before getting irritated ;) I will qualify that with why it never
> occured to me. I only jumped on ant-dev after it became a seperate project
> - I have no idea what came before.

That's fine. I understand where you are coming from.

> I just think you should be careful about claiming ownership since you
> abandoned ant dev a lot of other people have put a lot of time in
> maintaining / developing / whatever. Your overtones of reverting all
> changes that have occured during interim because they don't fit your vision
> also doesn't show the respect that I think the other developers deserve.

I didn't mean to abandon Ant-dev. I was working at a high level to make sure
that Sun's participation in Apache went well with Tomcat etc.. And I've been
working within Sun to make sure that NetBeans, OpenOffice, and other efforts
that we do go well. At the same time my real job was to author Servlet and
JAXP specs. So, I didn't get the spend the time I wanted.

So it seems that that work took away from here. Bah.

> Well as no one has patched it majorly you still own images of source so it
> wouldn't be necessary ;) Besides which I think it would be a huge shame to
> see you leave. 
> Cheers,

Actually it would since it all says ©2000 Apache Software Foundation on it.
Copyright assignment is serious business that I won't play lightly with
since that is the foundation on which all open source licenses are built.

.duncan

-- 
James Duncan Davidson                                        duncan@x180.net
                                                                  !try; do()


Mime
View raw message