labs-labs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <pque...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Lab for distributed SCM?
Date Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:37:20 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>> Paul Querna wrote:
>> Quoting from Roy's proposal:
>> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/labs-labs/200701.mbox/%3c84A09447-826C-4266-B56F-AC2AFF439D79@gbiv.com%3e>

>>
>> ====
>> This is, essentially, a documentation project consisting of a group
>> of editors' sandboxes under version control.  There are no releases
>> and most discussion, if any, will be on other organizations' lists
>> (aside from the chatter among the committers working on the lab itself).
>> A public version history is extremely important for this kind of work
>> in order to combat attempts to monopolize certain standards after the
>> ideas have been published.
>> =====
>>
>> It's very clear, he is doing a documentation project related to 
>> existing Apache projects, which there are several examples of working 
>> well inside Apache.
> 
> I fail to see how documenting ideas about possible improvements to HTTP 
> is pertinent to Labs while documenting ideas about improvements to 
> version control is not. Subversion might not be an apache project, but 
> it's clearly a central piece of our infrastructure and its features 
> drive (and were driven from) a lot of our own social dynamics.

Ah, but that is the point -- If the documentation was about using our 
shared infrastructure, then there already is a place for that: site-dev.

That list is responsible for managing the documentation on 
infrastructure, and how we use it at:
  <http://www.apache.org/dev/>

If the goal is to produce documentation on how to use git-svn for 
example with the Apache SVN repository, I believe the correct place for 
such a project is on site-dev, not the Labs.

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Just so that I understand better where your negative vote comes from: 
> are you afraid that lack of code is going to generate ungrounded and 
> hard to resolve discussions (while in Roy's case, it was really his own 
> lab with his own ideas and hardly people would challenge him at this 
> draft stage) or is it something else I'm missing?

I do believe that documentation can be a valid project, but I also 
believe that documentation related to infrastructure already has a home, 
and Labs is not it.

If the Lab proposal is not about documentation, then what is it?

When you remove documentation, what is left from the original proposal, is:

"""Most importantly it would provide a neutral ground for discussing the 
merits of different systems and practices. """

Which has been mentioned already by others[1] on this list as not making 
sense for Labs.  As I said in my first mail, I do not believe that this 
is the place to have a neutral ground for discussing.

If there is another significant purpose of this proposed lab, please 
tell me.

But based on the original proposal, I believe that there isn't a need 
for a Lab.

Thanks,

-Paul

[1] - 
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/labs-labs/200802.mbox/%3c87F08A77-BDEC-404B-A19A-C39243D5E23F@leosimons.com%3e>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscribe@labs.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: labs-help@labs.apache.org


Mime
View raw message