incubator-clerezza-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: sketch of a compromise solution -- Re: [VOTE] Accept the proposed patch of CLEREZZA-540
Date Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:25:27 GMT
2011/6/7 Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto.bachmann@trialox.org>

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Tsuyoshi Ito <tsuy.ito@trialox.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Henry, hi Reto
> >
> > Can I remind you that we are working towards a release and IMO we should
> > not
> > change APIs anymore. Your are now discussing over 2 weeks about the
> > GraphNodeProvider and IMO your discussion isn't very constructive.
> >
> > I think there ist some potential thread that bundles can add
> documentation
> > to the contentgraph as addition as Henry mentioned.Therefore we should
> > create an issue.
> >
> > But as Tommaso mentioned if you don't trust GraphNodeProvider or
> > ContentGraphProvider don't used it. I have developed a lot of
> applications
> > (e.g. Quiz, Poll, Feed Manager) where I don't use the
> ContentGraphProvider
> > because I don't want to share the information or I don't trust it.
> >
> > I think we could rename the package of the GraphNodeProvider to make
> clear
> > that it depends on the contentgraph and its additions. So I suggest to
> > rename the package of the GraphNodeProvider to
> >
> > platform.content.graphnodeprovider
> >
> > Would be cool if we could find a solution.
> >
> Indeed, I'm happy with the renaming if Henry can withdraw his -1 and accept
> the proposed resolutions to the issues being discussed.
>

At this point I think we do need to find a solution to move forward and this
is what it seems good to me.

I don't want to find ourselves in the situation Lucene/Solr project faced
lately with people vetoing and reverting each other's commit requiring a
formal report on how to deal with those issues from the ASF Board [1].
Being an Apache project consists also of building a community able to behave
in a smart and positive way even when there are controversial opinions and
it seems to me we have to learn a lot here, see one example:

Most of any attempts I have made at closing an issue have been blocked by
> you. True my
> code is not perfect, but neither is yours. And that is a little bit why I
> am giving you
> a bit of heat here.


so where do we end up with this? This sounds like "I am annoying you since
you've been annoying me", is that positive?

I do think we should forget for a moment the recent controversies and keep
up the good work we've been doing for more than a year and a half with
Clerezza. Can we?

Tommaso

[1] :
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt



>
> Reto
>
>
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Tsuy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:07, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
> > >
> > > > -1 for the moment on closing the issue. (not on removing the code)
> > > >>  Please answer the above points carefully.
> > > >
> > > > I can of course remove the code, In understood the staement above as
> > you
> > > not
> > > > explicitely not asking me to do so. The point is that it makes little
> > > > difference (apart from the couple of minutes needed for the revert):
> > your
> > > -1
> > > > is blocking further development.
> > > >
> > > > To your claim that I did not provide an explanation for my recent -1
> to
> > > your
> > > > resolution of CLEREZZA-515: A -1 without technical reasons is not
> > valid,
> > > I
> > > > provided 5 technical reasons with my -1. I refused to give further
> > > > explanations and enter discussion before you removed the
> compatibility
> > > and
> > > > api-description breaking patch. It took you more than a week to
> revert
> > > this
> > > > change, this was a serious impediment on using the code in trunk.
> > > >
> > > > May I ask you to be explicit:
> > > >
> > > > [ ] I stick to my -1, but I don't mind the code staying there as long
> > as
> > > no
> > > > new code is added depending on it
> > > > [ ] I want the patch for CLEREZZA-540 reverted
> > > > [ ] I withdraw my -1
> > >
> > > I have also provided ample technical reasons. But I am willing to look
> at
> > > your arguments (unlike your -1 on my code). The discussion seems to be
> > > evolving quite a lot. I want to look at this relation between JSR311
> code
> > > and the
> > >
> > > If I may say: adding code quickly to ZZ and then closing  issues
> quickly
> > > seems like a way to bypass scrutiny.
> > >
> > > Reviewing code as you mentioned recently in CLEREZZA-516 is a lot of
> work
> > > (indeed you asked me there to do more work refactoring things, to avoid
> > you
> > > having to do such reviewing). I am sure you can make a branch, like my
> > > bblfish branch, and work on that in the mean time.
> > >
> > > I'll be looking at your criticism of my JSR311 points and your
> > explanation
> > > for why you need this next. You should be happy that you get this free
> > > reviewing. Criticism is expensive to purchase.
> > >
> > > Henry
> > >
> > > Social Web Architect
> > > http://bblfish.net/
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message