Re: [Libxmlplusplus-general] resume of one day's work

[murrayc t-online de (Murray Cumming)]

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 15:11, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> > I asked
> > Christophe not to give you cvs write access immediately so that you
> > would have the chance to develop the correct habits first. In my
> > experience that is a smoother process.
> 
>  From my perspective the problem here is that you have a very strange
> definition of 'correct habits'. You are certainly not getting me to
> ask you for checkin permission each time I want to make an checkin.
> 
> I *never* would make API changes without asking for agreement. So far,
> the only API changes I made are additions, and I asked whether people
> would agree on them. Since nobody objected (in what I considered a
> reasonable time frame), I took it a checkin to that effect would be
> fine.

You need to wait a bit longer for responses. It's not good to just
assume that people have read your (long) emails and agreed.


> >>Who are you that you give me permission or not to do things ?
> > 
> > 
> > I am the person who revived the project, and created the stable/unstable
> > release plans.
> 
> Where are those plans ? The only thing about a release I heared was
> you discussing with Christophe about whether or not to include my
> first patch into the 1.0 branch (and thus, release).

We have stated several times on this list that we want to aim for a
stable 1.0 API for the sake of stability while continuing with an
unstable API. Unfortunately the archives might not be reliable, but I'm
fairly sure that we've mentioned this in emails to you.

> In a nutshell, I'd like to see clearly how you (and the other project
> participants) envision the project's future (where do we want this 
> project to go ?) and the way it is maintained.

Here are some excerpts from the archive, from me:

<excerpts>
I would like us to release an API/ABI-stable libxml++ 1.0 soon and then
start an unstable parallel-installable 1.2 branch. This would allow me
to release a stable version of my Bakery library.

(Christof):
> Further enhancements will be done on a new branch, probably 1.1.

It would make sense to call that API 1.2, with initial releases as 1.1.
It should be parallel-installable with 1.0. 1.2 development should
happen on cvs HEAD with 1.0 being on a branch.

I think 0.18.0 is very close to what will be 1.0.0, but we hope to add
validation, and make some boring parsing options per-parser instead of
global (they are actually not even options now).
</excerpts>

Also, Chrisophe discussed the creation of the branch, but did not say
whether he had done it yet.

It's OK to be wrong. We've sorted it out. But if I need to spend time
explaining the process to you repeatedly then I have less time to
actually consider your technical suggestions. All of us often wish that
we had more power over projects, because we often think we know what's
best. But a maintainer is a maintainer and a contributor is a
contributor. I am a contributor and I don't do anything without
permission. You can't become a maintainer overnight. I will not discuss
this any more because I think it is a waste of my time. Now I want to
look at your technical emails.

> For me it's really just a matter of efficiency. I'm looking forward
> to have constructive and open-minded discussions about the project's
> design and code. But I'm a bit worried about the overhead implied by
> an overly restrictive development process.
> 
> Really, the thing may be as simple as stating clearly what kind of
> changes are acceptable and what are not.
> 

We want your improvements but they must be discussed and managed. That's
how good APIs are created. If you feel that you _must_ have full
unlimited power over the project then you are free to fork. I hope that
you will choose to work with us instead.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murray usa net
www.murrayc.com