Quoting Costin Manolache <cman...@yahoo.com>:

Thanks for answering this, it is really helpful.

There is something wrong here and I hope you get to see it: the community majority can't vote for a revolution *and* vote for new release of the old branch. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

When a revolution is voted and accepted, no new release which is not a bugfix can be accepted.

Period.

Why? because there can't be *two* different projects using the same name.

Yes, I recognize that but it's fairly obvious: they were doing the exact same
thing!

Acknowleged. This is why I think the rules for revolutionaries just work.

But this doesn't mean that they can't be improved and this is *exactly* what I'm doing right now: trying to find a way to avoid the problems and negative friction that that tomcat revolution created.

I *strongly* disagree. After the majority of the community expressed a vote on a revolution, the old codebase *lost* the status of being actively maintained and, in order to continue, should have been filed for *another* proposal, with *another* codename and *without* the ability to make releases.

It would have solved *much* of the negative feelings that the tomcat community was spreading around the ASF at that time.

I still disagree. The rules of revolutionaries *MUST* (I repeat *MUST*!!!) protect the identity of the project more than they protect the freedom of innovation of the single developers.

More than anything else, the fact that two different codebases were *released* with the same name at the same time, pissed many people off (myself included) and created a lot of problems in the users.

The rules for revolutionaries had a bug since they didn't specify what was going to happen to the project that was overruled by the revolution.

We have to fix this in the future.

But the way I want this to be fixed is to avoid the fragmentation of a project identity and Tomcat did exactly that.

How do you feel about this?