atom feed107 messages in org.apache.communityRe: Rules for Revolutionaries
FromSent OnAttachments
40 earlier messages
Jeff TurnerNov 9, 2002 2:44 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 3:27 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:13 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:25 am 
Andrew C. OliverNov 9, 2002 4:27 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:31 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:35 am 
Andrew C. OliverNov 9, 2002 4:36 am 
Danny AngusNov 9, 2002 4:39 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:50 am 
Martin van den BemtNov 9, 2002 5:21 am 
Ceki GülcüNov 9, 2002 6:28 am 
Costin ManolacheNov 9, 2002 8:50 am 
Sam RubyNov 9, 2002 9:29 am 
Costin ManolacheNov 9, 2002 10:23 am 
Ceki GülcüNov 9, 2002 10:49 am 
Ceki GülcüNov 9, 2002 10:58 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 12:33 pm 
James Duncan DavidsonNov 9, 2002 3:29 pm 
James Duncan DavidsonNov 9, 2002 3:37 pm 
Chuck MurckoNov 9, 2002 6:08 pm 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 10, 2002 5:29 am 
Ceki GülcüNov 10, 2002 6:22 am 
James Duncan DavidsonNov 10, 2002 9:14 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 11, 2002 7:05 pm 
Stephen McConnellNov 11, 2002 7:26 pm 
Sam RubyNov 11, 2002 7:41 pm 
Jeff TurnerNov 11, 2002 7:43 pm 
Stephen McConnellNov 11, 2002 7:43 pm 
Ovidiu PredescuNov 11, 2002 9:34 pm 
Ovidiu PredescuNov 11, 2002 9:36 pm 
Sam RubyNov 11, 2002 9:51 pm 
Jeff TurnerNov 11, 2002 11:18 pm 
Andrew C. OliverNov 12, 2002 7:18 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 12, 2002 7:25 am 
Martin van den BemtNov 12, 2002 8:19 am 
Joe SchaeferNov 12, 2002 8:20 am 
Jeff TurnerNov 12, 2002 8:20 am 
Andrew C. OliverNov 12, 2002 8:28 am 
Henri YandellNov 12, 2002 8:41 am 
Costin ManolacheNov 12, 2002 9:58 am 
Costin ManolacheNov 12, 2002 10:14 am 
Craig R. McClanahanNov 12, 2002 11:38 am 
Andrew C. OliverNov 12, 2002 12:18 pm 
Glenn NielsenNov 12, 2002 7:05 pm 
Stephen McConnellNov 13, 2002 2:23 am 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 13, 2002 3:49 am 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 13, 2002 3:55 am 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 13, 2002 4:02 am 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 13, 2002 4:20 am 
17 later messages
Subject:Re: Rules for Revolutionaries
From:Stefano Mazzocchi (stef@apache.org)
Date:Nov 11, 2002 7:05:24 pm
List:org.apache.community

Quoting Costin Manolache <cman@yahoo.com>:

Thanks for answering this, it is really helpful.

On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 04:25, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

Please, let me ask you a few questions. I would be very happy if you or others could answer them:

1) was Catalina voted as Tomcat 4.0 explicitly by the majority of the tomcat dev community?

True.

2) did the above vote take place when Tomcat was at 3.2 version?

True.

3) is it true that Tomcat 3.3 was released *after* tomcat 4.0 was release and that was *not* a bugfix release but an alternative development branch?

True ( released after, not a bugfix - it wasn't a branch but the trunk for 3.x ).

Tomcat 3.3 release also had a majority of the tomcat-dev community. Most people working on 4.0 voted +-0 or abstained - and the same happened when 4.0 was released, with people working on 3.3 abstaining.

As I said - the majority controls the name and the release. A majority of tomcat committers can vote to make a release called Tomcat-anything, and the release can't be vetoed.

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.

4) is it true that at some point and for a while two different set of committers were working on two different tomcat codebases and both released as *tomcat* because of technical divergences?

That's also true. A lot of code was shared between the 2 codebases ( same jasper, ajp connector ) and a lot of ideas were common.

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

Some thing were very different ( target VM, hooks, size/features trade-off ). Other things started different but become identical ( facades for example ).

That's the whole point of a revolution - to improve the community and the code. One thing is very sure - we learned a lot from each other, and that wouldn't have been true if one set moved out.

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.

To answer one unasked question - a majority vote on a revolution branch doesn't mean everyone is required to abandon other revolutions or the main trunk and work on the new codebase.

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.

It just means the revolution is accepted and can move out of proposal state and be released using the project name. Other revolutions can happen at any 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?