tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <>
Subject Re: Review model take 2
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:55:32 GMT

"William A. Rowe, Jr." <> wrote in message
> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>> Now for me that just makes another chapter in the "STATUS" file:
>> "PATCHES being discussed". After a week those patches should be accepted
>> or reverted. Reverted patches and corresponding discussions should stay
>> in the "STATUS" until a solution is found. I would keep a passing margin
>> of +3.
> A higher bar to add a feature than to release the software?  Plainly 
> absurd.
> Majority is more than sufficient for almost any decision (more + than -)
> so long as you have at least three affirmative votes.  The only exception
> would be to undoing the decision of the PMC, such as booting a person from
> the project or 'unreleasing' a release (not that this would make any 
> sense).
> Those sorts of decisions *need* a supermajority (60 - 75% or even 
> unanimous
> decision, depending on what rules the committee follows) to undo what the
> majority had settled on before.
> That is unless you plan to shutter the project, which is what much of this
> discussion seems to be about.  Set up as many obstacles to changing 
> Tomcat,
> until Tomcat stagnates entirely, and surrenders to that Glassfish thing?
> If the project wants to remain relevant, it needs a healthy community,
> which means attracting instead of repulsing people, and it needs.   And
> it needs to provide an opportunity for people to innovate, not many of
> the folks here suck on the corporate tit for their camping at Tomcat, and
> are "happy" to do allot of nothing.  Creativity is the energy behind the
> success of ASF projects.  Deny your contributors the opportunity to solve
> problems creatively, and you might as well hang out the "Closed" sign out
> on the page already.
> All that said, the topic of "no more trunk" came up at the board meeting
> today.  I gave a very brief background and suggested that some of the
> renewed interest by folks who had been silent throughout the Filip-Remy
> trunk war is a hopeful sign; with renewed interest the project is very
> likely to be able to manage itself successfully through these personal
> and stylistic disagreements; the board is satisfied to see the project
> try to work out these issues themselves as long as development once again
> is encouraged.

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).  Thus, there 
is really no reason for a "trunk" at this time, at least until the Servlet 
3.0 spec comes out.  If somebody wanted to make a [PROPOSAL] for major 
changes to the core TC 6.0.x API, then I can see setting up a "trunk" again. 
But there is no such animal lurking at this time.

> But without reestablishing a method for the committers to innovate, or
> with continued/renewed territorial behaviors, this issue will likely
> be noticed again by the board a few months from now as an issue in need
> of a solution.

I maintain that there is currently a very small barrier to "innovating" on 
Tomcat.  We had one innovation that was shown to have a big whopping 
security hole in it, so it was withdrawn until a better patch can be made 
(i.e. the system worked).  There were people (myself included) that would 
have preferred a modular patch (e.g. with httpd, I can configure it so that 
mod_alias isn't included with a few small edits, but the patch in question 
didn't allow for that, which was the complaints).

> Bill 

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

View raw message