tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jean-frederic clere <>
Subject Re: Review model take 2
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:45:27 GMT
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
>> On 9/20/07, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>>> On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
>>>> TC 4.1.x and TC 5.5.x represented major changes to the core API, and
>>>> resulted in much more stable Tomcat code.  There is no such issue
>>>> for TC
>>>> 6.0.x (just a disagreement on the comet API, which we have already
>>>> dealt
>>>> with, and decided to let software-darwinism take it's course).
>>> When I suggested a TC 6.0 and 6.5 dual approach, Costin said:
>>>    "Strong -1 on this. Done that - didn't work so good, and it
>>> doesn't solve
>>>    the core problem - it's not about 'cutting edge' versus 'stable',..."
>> Context needed :-)
>> -1 was on having a TC6.5 as a way to resolve conflicts ( so some
>> people can
>> make broad
>> changes in one and some in other without having to
>> 'discuss'/argue/veto ).
>> The transition between 5.5 to 6.0 ( AFAIK ) was based on '5.5 is mostly
>> frozen, only important
>> and select changes backported, all new activity on 6.0'.
>> I also don't think a 6.5 is needed unless there is no huge
>> architecture and
>> API change, as it happened in 5.5->6.0,
> well, we have the annotation changes needed for geronimo, that were not
> allowed in 6.0
> personally, I think that was enough to keep trunk alive.
> Let's say that I did have a huge architecture change, lets say, I want
> to swap out ByteChunk/CharChunk for ByteBuffer/CharBuffer and also use
> nio charset conversion,
> then doing that in trunk is not so appropriate either. So I will do that
> in sandbox, the right place for an experiment like that. Maybe it turns
> out that it worked perfectly, and we want to put that into Tomcat, we
> can't put it in 6.0, that would be insane, and we don't have a trunk, so
> where do we put it?
> Removing trunk, pretty much halted any chances for future innovation, as
> approved sandbox experiments have nowhere to go.

To my point of view the goal is/was not to remove trunk for ever.
The goal is/was to have a trunk where we all (or mostly all) agree on
what we want in it. It needs a road map for the future and may be rules
how to turn innovation in a stable product. It also needs more than 2
participants to prevent endless and useless disagreements.



>>  but my 'strong -1' was for the reasons above. I don't mind having a
>> 6.5 -
>> if both Remy and Filip and all other
>>  people who are actively developing move to 6.5 so changes get the right
>> review ( instead of 'that's my branch, that's yours' )
> the "my" vs "your" should have never happened, and when those terms were
> coined, they should have been shutdown that very minute.
> I never believed in those terms for sure.
> Filip
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message