commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodney Waldhoff <rwaldh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [plea] get back to work
Date Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:24:50 GMT
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Greg Stein wrote:

> It doesn't really matter was is listed. What is the actual truth is that
> there are only two committers on the thing: ggregory and tobrian.
> The others are happenstance.

That statement is simply not accurate.  There are at least four folks who
have made commits at its current location.  There are seven folks who have
made commits at its previous location (commons-sandbox).  A quick grep
for @author tags indicates that there are quite a number of hands in this
body of work.

As you may be aware, the Base64 implementation in particular has quite a
rich history at Jakarta--it has been cut-and-pasted, shared and mutated in
quite a number of projects, at least including, Ant, Slide, and
Commons-HttpClient and now Commons-Codec.  Bugfixes and changes have been
back-ported and forward-ported between a number of these mutations. It's a
vertiable case study of "reuse", in all it's forms, at Jakarta.  If all
you've done is a "cvs log" on the current codec repository, you're missing
most of the picture here.

> > > I have never seen an example where a commons
> > > developer (committer or not) is unable to "do what they want...with the
> > > code that interests them" because of community fragmentation.
>
> It isn't fragmentation. It is people asserting ownership over something
> they are not involved with. Tim said, "I'd like to move this to A-C" and
> people who are really not involved with the codebase are saying "no". One
> of the two who are closest is thus denied what he believes is best for the
> codebase.

I'll assume you are referring to my vote.  This statement is also
inaccurate, in at least two ways:

1) I didn't "assert ownership" over anything.  I stated my -1 opinion on a
majority vote thread.  Moreover, I explictly stated that if others wanted
to view this as a consensus vote, I'd change my vote to -0, hence not
"denying" anyone anything.

2) I have been involved with this code and this component, in a number of
ways, over an extended period of time.  I may not have contributed
as much as some others, notably Greg (G.) and Tim, but as I understand
it, we're not a "some animals are more equal than others" kind of
place, at least officially.  Unofficially, see #1.

I believe moving codec to apache commons at this time is a mistake. I'm
entitled to my opinion in the matter.  I'm also entitled to express it.

> [ all that said, note that this is for example purposes only. the other
>   committer on code, ggregory, voted against moving, so tobrian dropped
>   the suggestion;

Right, so what's your point again?

> however, if the two of them *had* said "let's move", it
>   sure looked like J-C was going to try and stop it ]

I don't believe that to be the case.  It would be the first time that the
jakarta commons committers as a whole acted against the wishes of the
developers of a particular component.

> Note: I'm not asserting that A-C solves this. My point was focused around
> (IMO) improper assertions of "ownership" (if you will) over components and
> their destinies.

Please point to something "improper", or drop the assertion.

> The second point was that I feel that J-C isn't quite as
> unified as some may believe, by virtue of the small dev subgroups.

No one said it was "unified", did they?

> Cheers,
> -g

-- 
- Rod <http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/>

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


Mime
View raw message