cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: [Result] [Vote] Java 5 as minimum JDK requirement
Date Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:18:35 GMT
Jorg Heymans skrev:
...
> I'ld say we stop argueing about this and use our time more 
> constructively to experiment with the retroweaver. I hear it has an ant 
> task, integrating it into our build process should be a breeze then.

This seem like a reasonable proposal to me.

============

To summarize how I understand the situation:

Joerg's main reason for the veto against using Java 5 in Cocoon 2.2 is 
that we would risk "losing some of our user base".

Now if experiments with retroweaver/retrotranslator show that we can use 
Java 1.5 _and_ produce libraries that work in a Java 1.4 environment, 
the above problem should be resolved and Joerg should be able to retract 
his veto. Right Joerg?

In such a case (i.e. if Joerg retract his veto) we would not need a new 
vote for starting to use Java 5.

Now, AFAIU retroweaver/retrotranslator have some (small) limitations, so 
we probably would need a new proposal that says that we use the subset 
of Java 5 supported by retroweaver/retrotranslator.

(Here is a link about how retrotranslator is used in Stripes 
http://stripes.mc4j.org/confluence/display/stripes/Java+1.4+and+Stripes.)

============

Now something about vetoing:

According to http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management

"The rules require that a negative vote includes an alternative proposal 
or a detailed explanation of the reasons for the negative vote.

The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative proposal 
that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the concerns 
leading to the negative vote can be addressed.

This process is called "consensus gathering" and we consider it a very 
important indication of a healthy community."

To me it seem to put a lot of emphasis on reaching a consensus. Right 
now we have a veto that most of the community don't agree with. That is 
far away from consensus and is IMO _not_ an acceptable situation from a 
community health POV. This means that we have to continue to work until 
we find a solution that we can get a consensus around.

/Daniel

Mime
View raw message