Re: BeanShell alternatives (was Re: Status of projectand adding 1.5 generics)

On Dec 10, 2008, at 5:03 PM, fschmidt wrote:

> Paul Reavis wrote:
>>
>> I think we need:
>> 1) official website with version control and project management
>> 2) one or more official leaders
>> 3) a near-term stable release based on the latest beta
>> 4) clean pedigree
>>
>
> BeanShell 2 has a site http://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ and  
> subverion.
> It is based on the latest beta with numerous bug fixed added.  I'm  
> not sure
> what "clean pedigree" means.
>
> I don't understand the need for leaders when there is virtually no  
> one to be
> led.  Very few people will actively participate and those few who do  
> should
> easily be able to reach agreement on issues as long as they are  
> willing to
> speak up.

I guess by "clean pedigree" I really mean a clear transfer of  
authority. Forks are painful and disruptive for communities and I  
think all would be happier if there was one more or less official  
successor to the current incarnation of BeanShell. One of the real  
weaknesses of BeanShell at this point is tool support and that will  
continue if there is no clear successor.

I'm not arguing for or against your fork. I haven't looked at it hard  
enough to have an opinion.

As for leadership, I think it's naive to assume the project will guide  
itself. If there are only a few involved then de facto those are the  
leaders. Someone will have to push at least on the release management  
side. Fixing bugs is trivial compared to getting a coherent stable  
release out.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/