tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Send trunk to the sandbox
Date Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:54:53 GMT
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>> Development in "trunk" is not done properly at the moment.
>> Back up 1 step; define "proper", with pointers to the
>> documents, if they exist.
>> Otherwise you are doing a good job of showing the entire vote is
>> really nothing but ad hominem attacks between a few developers,
>> and has much less to do with code than personalities.
>>> There's a large thread on these issues. At the time, the API design was
>>> downright bad. It did improve to some extent (without further debate),
>>> but this was all done in trunk without any collaboration.
>> You just said you improved it; ergo you collaborated.  You don't need
>> dev@ mails to discuss commits until someone disagrees, just as you did.
> API changing code was committed without prior discussion, and then 
> further modifications were made, all in an official branch (I then 
> started working on a sandbox branch myself, which was far more 
> appropriate).
and your veto was noted, though it explicitly said "leave it in trunk", 
whenever, you decide to change that, let me know. but so far you haven't.
>> Your veto in that example said "leave it on trunk".  If you now disagree
>> that it can be improved to satisfy your original veto, restate your
>> technical veto and just ask for the revisions to be reverted.
> Everything was explained in the thread. I found the API to be very 
> perfectible and too complex. Iterative simplifications could be made 
> without affecting functionality. Some underlying implementation was 
> off too, if I remember correctly.
yet, 100% backwards compatible.
>> Of course all code is written without collaboration, unless you are all
>> trying to reach a consensus character-by-character on how the source
>> code is created.  How it's integrated, or if it is at all, is a matter
>> for the project to determine together.
> I expect some talking when APIs are concerned, or it should be done in 
> the sandbox :| Hence, my requests and the vote to move trunk to the 
> sandbox, which I think are legitimate.
trunk != comet
you need to get yourself straightened out, just cause you don't like 
comet, doesn't justify blowing away trunk. we can simply revert comet if 
that is your only point of argument.
>> I've actually glanced through the various earlier messages and really
>> see only two points of view expressed on the list about any of the 
>> actual
>> code.  Yours, and Filips.  Which leads me to read the whole debate as
>> a turf war over Tomcat.  I can't believe this project would already be
>> at the melt-down point again, but here we are.  It's not your personal
>> playground, nor is it Filip's personal playground.
> (excuse me, but when was the previous meltdown ?)
he :) we've had a few I believe
>> Feel free to contradict my opinion with a pointer or two at some 
>> technical
>> input from other project members, of course.  But I become concerned 
>> when
>> only two people in a project even grok the technical implications of 
>> what
>> is in their repository.
> Yes, only two persons participate in the debate. I think we fully 
> agree on the problem, since Filip proposed to vote on proposals but I 
> believed it would be pointless since only two persons seemed to hold 
> informed votes (or care, which is a bit the same) about it.
yes, never the less, a vote would have been definitive, and people would 
have been inclined to vote, just for the sake of ending the discussion.
If you listened to Mladen, he would have voted for you, regardless of 
what the API was, since you were the originator to the pre-"event" API.
remember, it would be very hard to justify an API as technically bad, it 
is a personal preference.
>> Some backstory,
>> As a frame of reference, the same thing happened at APR/HTTPD over the
>> entire concept of buckets and brigades.  Ryan and Greg were at odds over
>> the implications.  As svn was properly managed with 
>> commits/vetos/reverts,
>> the projects were at an impasse with no movement to the next generation
>> server.  So, all the committers were invited to a f2f powwow for Greg 
>> and
>> Ryan to duke it out and thoroughly explain their plan and justification.
>> We treated it as a non-vetoable situation.  Neither design was 
>> technically
>> invalid, it was a preference.  So they had their shootout, and (gasp) 
>> even
>> came to agreement on the appropriate solution (to the nods of dozens of
>> attendees).  More importantly, the other committers who were 'inflicted'
>> with the design had a chance to thoroughly understand what it was and 
>> why
>> it was done that way.
>> Back to Tomcat, it sounds like this is an argument of preference over
>> technical correctness.  Perhaps November in Atlanta or Hong Kong would
>> be a good time for you to sit down, fill in all the other interested
>> committers in the exact merits of your preferences, and reach consensus?
>> And maybe feathercast the debate highlights and decision :)
<joke>more like price-is-right contest</joke>
> Thanks for the info, we're not there yet I think.
we could be, if we just focused on getting the real issues resolved, not 
getting rid of entire branches, like trunk.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message