avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leo Sutic" <leo.su...@inspireinfrastructure.com>
Subject RE: Spice Dependency (was: RE: Spice License)
Date Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:09:57 GMT
Could we quickly recap the issues:

1.
> Not if it is deprecated as there is no need to add
> dependencies to deprecated code unless it is compatability 
> layers.

2.
> Not if it is in its current state as it is broken in excalibur and
> doesn't even pass its unit tests.

3.
> Not if it will be deprecated in the future or any migration
> will be forced.

4.
> Not unless you show some real commitment to actually doing
> maintanence. 


(1) has been settled by PMC - the point is out.
(2) is agreed upon - no discussion here.
(3) is unreasonable, and you know it.
(4) is contested - it seems like we have different opinions on
    what Apache delevlopment is.

So can I throw out points 1-3 and focus on 4?

> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@realityforge.org] 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 01:39, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > There is no rub - ownership of code is collective, not individual. 
> > However, as an individual, I'm happy to assume the responsibility of

> > finishing what I start - so if I start making a change to a stable 
> > package, I will leave it in a stable form - success or rollback.
> 
> Proof is in the pudding.

Of what - that there is a rub, or my ability to execute the proposed
changes?
 
> > Why do you need to designate individual maintainers of 
> > pieces of code?
> 
> Because it is not being maintained in Avalon now and it is 
> unlikely it will be maintained in Avalon in the future. 

Unlikely in the sense that we're getting rid of parts of Avalon
that are out of scope. But take CLI for example - what
maintenance is needed? The code works, is solid, and basically 
isn't about to rot. By committment to doing maintenance -
just what do you mean?

This is how I see it:

 1. There is general consensus that we prefer intra-apache
    dependencies (i.e. Commons).

 2. Phoenix uses Excalibur CLI, which we've deprecated.

 3. Due to (2), Phoenix is now dependent on Spice.

 4. But, there is no need for that dependency - Phoenix
    can depend on Excalibur/Compatibility. You and everyone
    else can develop the CLI project under Compatibility
    just as well as you can do it under Spice.

 5. I don't use Phoenix, probably never will, but I
    see this as a little smudge on my otherwise perfect
    dependency tree (as defined by my propably perverted
    sensibilities).

 6. So I offer to re-set the dependency to Excalibur/Compat.

So, I don't get this maintenance part. If I leave it in a stable
state - and coder X goes in a breaks it, shouldn't then coder X
fix it? I.e. everyone is responsible for maintaining the code
in a stable functioning state. Sort of a "transactional" approach.

/LS


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org


Mime
View raw message