lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] 0.1.0 release prep
Date Fri, 20 May 2011 23:13:08 GMT
Sure, but it is counter to the goals of an Apache project to allow
*anything* to block progress other than a technical veto.  It is
"bad form" for anyone to take a lock on RMing the codebase, just
as it is "bad policy" to instill code freezes on trunk.  Find another

I'm yelling at Chris today, but tomorrow I may be yelling at Marvin
for being too much of a coordination hub for this project.  We need
to start documenting the common goals that we all can agree on, but
at the same time ensure that every committer has equal say in the
control and direction of the project.   Kinda hard to do that right
now as so much of this codebase was authored by Marvin, but over
time if enough of us scribble on it we can all share the same goals.

----- Original Message ----
> From: Marvin Humphrey <>
> To:
> Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 6:58:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] 0.1.0 release prep
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:56:05PM -0700, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)  wrote:
> > OK, let me be more clear and concrete -- I'm will cut it before  or at the
> > latest, by EOD Sunday. That's what I meant.
> Thanks,  Chris.
> I'm concerned by the somewhat personal tone in the heated exchange  that went
> past just before this, such as when Joe said, "No more stalling  Chris", and
> when Chris responded, "Get over yourself Joe".  Chris's good  intentions and
> investment in Lucy's success are not in doubt, and there's no  way he would be
> purposefully "stalling".  I don't think Joe meant to  imply that, but the
> wording was regrettable.  And regarding the  rejoinder, dialing down a 
> instead of ratcheting up -- or simply not  responding at all -- is an 
> valuable skill that ideally we would  like to see our forum participants
> deploy.  Both Apache at large and the  KinoSearch community that moved here
> have long traditions of keeping things  constructive that we should all strive
> to uphold.
> That said, I'm  grateful for Joe's energy and desire to move us forward, and
> the admirable  responsiveness in Chris's followup, above.  I'm relieved and
> happy that  the end result has turned out to be people resolving their
> differences and  arriving at a concrete plan acceptable to everyone.
> Moving on to another  important aspect of the release...
> Chris, the last item on the  ReleaseGuide for the RM has says this about the
> release announcement  email:
>     Use the entry in the CHANGES file as the basis for  your email. 
> That will work fine for all releases going forward, but it's  not ideal for
> 0.1.0.  The CHANGES entry for this release is minimalist,  just mentioning the
> software grant.
> As a substitute, I think we should  work up a draft release announcement on 
> dev list over the next couple  days using an enumeration of Lucy's features as
> a starting  point.
> Marvin Humphrey

View raw message