forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tim Williams" <william...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Forrest history (was Re: svn commit: r384121)
Date Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:19:21 GMT
I'm probably a unique case in that I don't particular want credit for
anything I've done here.  I'm usually dissatisfied with most code I've
written within a couple weeks of having written it so long-lasting
credit for it is the last thing I want.  I do, however, like to be
associated with this community.

> What about http://cocoon.apache.org/history.html?

It's worth pointing out that you use a stale page as your example. 
Interesting, because that is what any "history" page is likely to
become.  Those who know it don't have time or the itch to write it.

> It is not *ownership* that "is the website of the dispatcher inventor:
> Thorsten Scherler" claims but stating the matter of fact.

I could be wrong but I don't think that ownership was what David's
primary concern was - I gather his concern is more about crediting
individual contributions.  Specifically about us as a community
putting a high-priority on crediting individual contributions.  It's
enough that we're progressing as a community and project - individual
contributions are important but not as important as our collective
progress.

> I had the itch
> and scratched it (and still do) as a historical fact. ;)

And that historical fact will forever be recorded in mail archives,
svn logs, and relevant changes.html.  Bottom line:  we know who to
[svn] blame;)

> Stefano Mazzocchi is the inventor of cocoon and Sir Berners-Lee is the
> inventor of the www, neither one of them claims ownership AFAIK. Another
> story is the net and the US government. ;) The initial forrest code is
> coming from Nicola Ken Barozzi and Ross Gardler has started the plugins
> both do not claim ownership neither do I with views aka v2 aka
> dispatcher, still the initial code came from this people.

I think the concern is that we shouldn't name the people responsible. 
All the above mentioned people are more than welcome to claim their
contributions on a private site, the question seems to be whether
forrest.a.o should highlight individuals' contributions or be content
with highlighting the applications new features (that happened to be
developed by a contributor who is appropriately acknowledged in all
the above mentioned places).

> Doing some research on the forrest history for my presentation I noticed
> that we are starting to hide historical facts and motives.

You seem to be implying something here but I won't take a guess at
what it is.  Maybe it's a language thing but questioning "motives" is
fairly serious in implying someone has an ulterior one. I hope that's
not what you really mean...

>I know we
> still have all this information but it is well hidden (e.g. [1]).

Another stale example.  That's actually a good example of why what you
suggest at the end of this email is not such a good idea -- it has no
real chance of being maintained.

> Why?
>
> I strongly agree with "none of it would be possible without the rest of
> us" but one should not confuse one thing from the other.
>
> Like the very first dispatcher site ever online is from Diwaker Gupta
> [2], helping us (especially me, back then) to demonstrate that one can
> use the dispatcher in production. It was the very first version
> codename: view. Thanks again Diwaker.
>
> I like history and the humanity would be nothing if not people would
> have kept track when and how something happen.

Forrest has some of the best history I could think of -- *much* better
than any history book I've ever read.  It's got SVN logs, SVN blame,
mail archives, and changes.html.  If we're ever a famous project the
historian that writes our book will have it too easy;)

> Do not get me wrong but I would like to start a history page about
> forrest (here) and keeping track of who did what, because it helps to
> understand us currently as project and where we are heading.
>
> wdyt?

I think that's a bad idea because it's destined to become an unread,
unmaintained page floating about giving misinformation to the masses. 
I think svn logs, svn blame, and mail archives gives the history for
geeks that care.  [1] gives the history for the rest of folks.

> BTW why do we versioning old docu? ;)

So that folks can always 'svn revert' when I goof up? ;)  Because we
have users that haven't yet upgraded to the latest version.

Having said all this, I personally think that David's change was a bit
hasty.  We don't sensor anyone else's "live-site" contribution, why
would we filter our own fellow committer?  If Thorsten wants that to
be his tag line for his personal site, what say to do we have in that?
 It's his personal web site.

Since we as the PMC actually endorse all other content on the site,
maybe this live-sites page needs a disclaimer at the top saying that
the Forrest PMC, commiters, and developers provide these links for
examples and information only - we do not endorse any particular
product, service, or information linked from this page?

--tim

[1] - http://forrest.apache.org/docs_0_80/changes.html

Mime
View raw message