Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release

Peter Donald wrote:

> It is just "organisation". Framework CVS/Code/whatever is stable now and one 
> of the few pieces we have managed to a decent level of quality. Sure theres 
> plenty of stuff about it that still crap but it works and people respect if 
> for being stable.

Agreed. There is 'crap' in the framework, as much as 'cobol' is crap or 
AS/400 is 'crap', but remove it without providing a significant 
(socially and economically) migration path would litterarely make the 
world collapse.

> All of the other stuff you mentioned is not anywhere near that level of 
> quality of framework - so why group them together. What possible advantage is 
> there to pushing bits around? Would it not be more productive to focus on 
> improving the quality of the code?

The real issue is: nothing should ever enter the framework CVS without a 
previous community design phase aimed to create consensus.

did that phase happen?

after that, nobody should be able to place vetos. avalon is owned by the 
community, not by individuals.

> Everytime some gets an idea to reorganize it seems that a half assed job is 
> done and we go through months of agony to get stable again ... if that ever 
> happens.

I had the same perception but I'm starting to change it given the hard 
work done by people (not perfect, but everybody has to learn by making 
mistakes).

I think the real issue is to have gump work right.