forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?
Date Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:27:30 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Gav.... wrote:
> >>From: Ross Gardler
> >>
> >>That being said, it may be helpful to see the code in order to bring
> >>about a consensus. What do others think? (I'm particularly interested in
> >>objections, I suspect there will be people who think the risk of
> >>splitting the community is too great at this stage of the discussion).
> >
> >This is true, take my comments as my +1 to do that. There is a but, we
> >should not hold off on getting the 0.8 release out ( or 1.0 as you 
> >mentioned
> >previously), I think it would be good to get a release out and if need be 
> >we
> >can start with a clean slate with this in whiteboard.
> Your "but..." is very astute. I've decided not to upload this code until 
> after 0.8 is out, otherwise it could never be released as I divert much 
> needed attention away from the release effort.

This is one of my major concerns too.

Even just contemplating the RT, is meaning that there is not
much time left to attend to other things. Not saying that
the discussion should wait, just that it is unfortunate timing.

I suggest that we all remember that the process of
RT to proposal and reaching consensus takes a long time.
We need to get on with the current things, but also keep
the RT moving somehow.

> If people want to see my code then I can be swayed, but I will need to 
> feel there is plenty of interest, right now I don't feel that. Although 
> I may be misinterpreting lazy consensus.

I reckon that it is neither of those. Perhaps other
people feel like me: I do not know what to say.

On one hand, everyone jumping on the code-it-now bandwagon
might be dangerous. On the other hand, it might be useful
to create an SVN branch so that we can see the proposed path.
I don't know.

I have six more partly-written replies to various aspects
of the RT and just cannot manage to finish them yet.
I see some negative implications, yet want to be careful
not to inflame the situation. I see many good aspects of
the proposal for a better framework. I also cannot yet
get my head around the enormity of it and how such a
small community can manage to re-implement years of work.

Out of the couple of hundred subscribers, we have only
heard from a small number. So the ideas are still in
the early stages.


View raw message