Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release
Stephen McConnell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.jakarta.avalon.phoenix.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > 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? YES - and its probably one of the best examples of Avalon Community collaboration ever. > > > after that, nobody should be able to place vetos. avalon is owned by > the community, not by individuals. +1 Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[email protected] http://www.osm.net