Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release

Stanfano:

I rather surprised at your email - have included lots of 
comments/questions in-line.


Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

>
> This project has been making progress around working together but 
> there are issues unresolved:
>
> 1) solidify excalibur but stopping it to be a moving target


This is already in progress. A couple of months agro we started a 
coordinated release process commencing with the release of the LogKit 
package following by the framework. Work has moved on to the packages 
under the excalibur CVS with iminent releases of the component,testcase, 
instrument, instrument-manager, logger, and pool packages. Work in 
underway for the release of serveral additional excalibur components 
including the lifecycle package.

>
> 2) clarify the future of cornerstone 


Work has already been underten to seperate individual Corenerstone 
packages enabling some degreee of release control. The release process 
for individual corenerstone units will be undertaken following 
completion of the dependent excalibur packages.

>
> 3) stop one-man-shows


Can you be more specific - what in you view are the one-man shows that 
must stop? Are these one-man shows related to released packages, 
packages scheduled for release, or are you referring to activities under 
the avalon-sandbox project.

>
> - o -
>
> Peter said he didn't like your solution because he thought it was a 
> hack. Guess what, I agree with him.

<snip-warm-and-fluffy-comment/>

Perhaps you could put forward you concrete arguments. Nothing below even 
suggests that you're familiar with the package in question. In fact 
several of the comments suggest that you may be confusing the lifecycle 
package with something else. You response on this is important because 
if you really think that the result of the collaboration between Marcus, 
Berin and myself is a "hack" - then I would like to discuss that will 
you. I will disagree with your position and present substantial evidence 
supporting that position. If however you comment is made with same level 
of indifference as the original hack comment from Peter Donald, then I 
can safely ignore it.

>
> This project used to be the place where people discussed architectural 
> issues about new paradigms that extended object orientation.


The lifecycle package was a successful process of collaboration by three 
people each with relatively different ideas on the approaches concerning 
lifecycle stage management under the Avalon framework. It remains a good 
example of collaboration and effective resolution of architectural 
issues. Furthermore, it is a concrete demonstration of the willingness 
of different people to work together towards the achievement of common 
solutions on the container side of the Avalon equation.

>
> What happened to that?


Seems to me that it is alive and well. If you have been following the 
discussion here - there is a workplan that involes getting existing 
content released and managable, including the release of Fortress and 
later, Merlin. Berin and I have undertaken to work together on 
addressing the questions of ECM/Fortress component management in an 
architecture based on the Merlin Assembly package. This is part of the 
process of moving forward with the objective of resolving differences 
across Avalon.

>
> Since reaching consensus on Avalon 5 was too hard, several of you are 
> trying to push your ideas into the framework by working it thru your 
> one-man-show container.


I disagree. A5 is a subject that requires focus and solid consideration. 
I don't think a lot of progress will be made on that while the release 
process is underway. With the releases done, I fully expect the 
resumption of A5 discussions and hope that everyone here applies a 
constructive approach to the process.

> This is the problem and Peter appears to be the only one *really* 
> watching over what's going on in this project. Probably because he's 
> doing some sneaky moves himself so he's more sensible about them.


I disagree. You comment ignores the time and effort people are putting 
into the release process. It ignores the time and effort people are 
putting into establishing a clean sandbox structure. It also ignores 
completely the community concensus reached on direction.

> Sure, he uses his usual smartass tone that really used to irritate me, 
> but I'm now able to sense his frustruation and I resonate with it.


Instead of putting forward a half-hearted attempt to justifiy the 
behaviour of Peter Donald, perhaps you could explain the frustrations 
that you resonate with. That would be constructive and helpfull (and 
certainly more constructive and helpful than some of the suggestions you 
have made in your email).

>
> One-man-shows have to stop.
>
> *all* of them.


Please be specific and either identity the project in question or 
actually state the issue. If you referring to the work that I have been 
leading with respect to the Merlin project then say so (but please be 
prepared to present you case in the context of the community involvement 
in that project).

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.osm.net