Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4550B8F8.7060408@Golux.Com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:48:56 -0500
From: Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com>
Reply-To: coar@apache.org
Organization: The Apache Software Foundation; Open Source Initiative
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Java EE 5.0
References: <E62A13C5-0B70-4694-B4CC-58510CFF4F7D@hogstrom.org>
 <1b5bfeb50611060912l6375ec22vcc8d4bef78f2e453@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB894779-E508-4F1E-AB05-D3DF0FFEF998@iq80.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB894779-E508-4F1E-AB05-D3DF0FFEF998@iq80.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Do you mean that we will have two active development trees?

Sounds like it.

> If so, I'm against that (-1).  We have tried that in the past and it
> has never worked out for us.  We split our developers when we need
> focus the most (the end of a release),

The implicit assumption there is that the 'developers' all have
the same interests.  That's not necessarily how it works.  If
there are some people who are interested in EE 5 but not in the
work on trunk, then they probably aren't contributing anything
there now.  So creating a branch won't be sucking those people
away from trunk, whereas *not* creating it won't advance the
trunk work and *does* present an obstacle for those people.

The uncertainty element here is people who are currently
contributing to trunk but would switch over to an EE 5
branch if one were created.  Those individuals would be happy,
but the trunk work would suffer.

On the other hand, part of what contributes to community is
individual empowerment.  If there's insufficient interest in
the trunk work to advance it, then that's pretty much all
she wrote.  It becomes a dead horse.  Trying to mandate that
people put aside their own interests and work on stuff
that *doesn't* interest them isn't an Apache paradigm.  It
has a lot more in common with commercial meet-the-deadline
models.

> and we have never successfully
> kept the fixes in sync.

Keeping them in sync isn't necessary.  Being able to have
rendezvous points at which they can be sync'd is better.
- --
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBRVC4+JrNPMCpn3XdAQK71AP/UZBRhj55QUCEg+HdKAWmUl0WLyJJj7G5
eFROEG2vd3D3EF3b+KhFVtlBh9W3035Iig49cC50QO1xh5Su+ZNLRykBhpnCwRNr
0+ZvEPkvEY8nX7OcDvi5jDcXjphP/u3U+9ClqcFoY+eYKwy13tlguNm8M8xyHS6h
R7F5NLSq+xk=
=+8vE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----