You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> on 2006/04/26 09:00:30 UTC
This has gone too far.
How Struts adds committers isn't "fair" - code quality, community
involvement, trust, and yes, personal taste are all factors. The PMC
members are the gate keepers, and being human, they show favoritism,
bias, and sometimes poor judgment. You may not like it, but that's the
way it is. Great. Can we move on now?
Struts isn't some damn social club, where we sit around and gossip about
the neighbors. Struts is about building great web frameworks, however,
I feel we have strayed from this path and lost our focus. If we,
committers and contributors alike, spent half the time committing code
and contributing patches as we do bickering, complaining, and "offering
our opinions", we'd be on Struts 4 by now! Let's stop this nonsense,
and get back to work!
Do you have too much free time on your hands? Great, there is much to
be done:
- Struts Action 1: We finally got the build working and have built a
test build. I haven't heard a single comment from anyone who has
downloaded it and given it a shot. If you want a stable Struts Action 1
release and more to come, get off your butt and help out!
- Struts Action 2: With most of the IP code out of the way, we've
started some great discussions on features to include in the next
release. While this is important, we also need to get some sort of
release out by JavaOne. We need people polishing up the code, updating
wiki docs, testing examples, writing migration guides, and fixing bugs.
- Tiles: For such a popular framework, it is a shame how few people
contribute (only one active maintainer (!)). Greg is working on a
standalone version of Tiles that would support Struts, Spring MVC, or
anyone else. If you use Tiles, jump in and help Greg with the
refactoring. We definitely will be looking for committers when this
moves to Jakarta.
- Struts Shale (yes it is an equal Struts project, get over it): There
still hasn't been a GA release of Shale that I know of. We need people
writing docs, fixing bugs, and providing key feedback to help polish
this product.
My personal thanks David Evens for helping out with JIRA, Wendy Smoak
her hard work for the Maven 2 migration, Ted Husted for the Mailreader
migration tutorial and training materials, Toby Jee for keeping up with
bug fixes and working on the ww migration, Patrick Lightbody for the SAF
2 Maven 2 work, Phil Zoio for writing Strecks....these are people who
stepped up to the plate and put their code where their mouth is. Let's
grow this list!
Don
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too
far.)
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Whether or not Action 1 and 2 get their own link under frameworks, the Action 1 site needs work. Let's get things done
rather than just talk about them :)
Don
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:59 am, Don Brown said:
>> This particular decision needs more discussion before we can move
>> forward on it, but in the meantime, our Action 1 website is hard to
>> navigate and missing content. If you are volunteering ;), you could
>> browse through it and make a list of recommendations on how it could be
>> improved from a user perspective. If you are really ambitious, you can
>> checkout the action project and create patches for the docs
>> (subproject/src/site/xdocs), and even add entries to the FAQs. I think
>> your root concern is it is hard for users to follow Action 1 and find
>> information, so I think improving the website would go a long way to
>> resolving this important observation.
>
> I'm on a very tight schedule with my book work at the moment, but I should
> be able to find at least some time this weekend, probably not before then
> though. However, before I do that...
>
> Are you saying that it would be OK, at least from your perspective, to
> break out Action1 as far as the site organization goes, even if it isn't
> an officially recognized sub-project from a management prespective? I
> almost wonder if that might be worse...
>
> To clarify my concern... your right, part of it is simply finding
> information, and that's really pretty easy to solve, as you say, just some
> web site mods should do it for the most part. My larger concern though,
> and why I was suggesting Action1 be officially a sub-project separate from
> Action2 and Shale, is so that it can take on a life of its own and
> continue to evolve separate from everything else (of course always sharing
> where possible!), and that it is clear to everyone that that is the
> plan... My understanding is that is already the intention and always has
> been, but making it its own project makes it, I think, much clearer. It
> also perhaps allows people to focus more in contributing.
>
> To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
> currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework. What I would like
> to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale. And
> sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
> should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
> might it be mixed signals before that time?
>
>> Don
>
> Frank
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
>> To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
>> currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework. What I would like
>> to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale. And
>> sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
>> should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
>> might it be mixed signals before that time?
>
> The term "subproject" doesn't mean a lot. There is only one PMC and
> one set of committers and one dev list. It's not unusual for there to
> be multiple lines of development for a product. We are doing that
> right now with Action 1.2 and 1.3.x
>
> When Action2 comes down from the incubator, it would make sense to me
> to list it under frameworks, so the list would be Action1, Action2,
> and Shale. I hadn't thought about it, but I expect that's what we
> would have done anyway..
+1 This is what I meant when I said we should make them more distinct:
- Give each their own link under frameworks
- Each have their own JIRA project
- And I'd argue, give action2 it's own root directory in SVN, although that isn't as big of deal
Don
>
> We did much the same during the 1.1 death march. There was a branch of
> the site for 1.0 and another for 1.1. Later, we reverted to the usual
> practice where the website reflects the head of the nightly build.
> Likewise, we have full copies of the 1.2 websites posted too.
>
> If Action1 continues to move forward, then, sure, people could
> continue to update its area of the website. But, I think the best way
> to think of Action1 and Action2 is just that: version 1.x and version
> 2.x. Action2 is the new and improved Action1. It's similar in a lot of
> ways, and different in others ways, but 2.0 versions are often like
> that. We *always* said that 2.x would be a revolution, and that's what
> we got.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 4/26/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
> currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework. What I would like
> to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale. And
> sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
> should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
> might it be mixed signals before that time?
The term "subproject" doesn't mean a lot. There is only one PMC and
one set of committers and one dev list. It's not unusual for there to
be multiple lines of development for a product. We are doing that
right now with Action 1.2 and 1.3.x
When Action2 comes down from the incubator, it would make sense to me
to list it under frameworks, so the list would be Action1, Action2,
and Shale. I hadn't thought about it, but I expect that's what we
would have done anyway..
We did much the same during the 1.1 death march. There was a branch of
the site for 1.0 and another for 1.1. Later, we reverted to the usual
practice where the website reflects the head of the nightly build.
Likewise, we have full copies of the 1.2 websites posted too.
If Action1 continues to move forward, then, sure, people could
continue to update its area of the website. But, I think the best way
to think of Action1 and Action2 is just that: version 1.x and version
2.x. Action2 is the new and improved Action1. It's similar in a lot of
ways, and different in others ways, but 2.0 versions are often like
that. We *always* said that 2.x would be a revolution, and that's what
we got.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)
Posted by Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com>.
On 4/26/06, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
> A few weeks ago, my reaction would have definitely been no, Struts
> Action is the project and there are two versions. However, as Action 2
> has moved along, and we've migrated resources like the wiki, jira, and
> Action 1 to Maven 2, I'm starting if you might not be on to something.
> Just from an SVN and JIRA perspective, it is much more natural to treat
> them as two different projects, and I'd argue from a user and website
> perspective as well.
Duh!
On 4/26/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
> currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework. What I would like
> to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale. And
> sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
> should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
> might it be mixed signals before that time?
I guess no one cares about the simplicity of, say, job search and
validity of results. It would be much simpler for everyone if they
were simply Struts, Webwork and Shale. Do you relly expect employers
to put "Struts Action Framework 2" in their job descriptions?
It would be much easier for Apache visitors to see one larger "Web
Frameworks" section that would cover not only for Struts, Webwork and
Shale, but for Tapestry, Cocoon and whatnot as well.
The above rant does not require a response.
Michael.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too
far.)
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:59 am, Don Brown said:
> This particular decision needs more discussion before we can move
> forward on it, but in the meantime, our Action 1 website is hard to
> navigate and missing content. If you are volunteering ;), you could
> browse through it and make a list of recommendations on how it could be
> improved from a user perspective. If you are really ambitious, you can
> checkout the action project and create patches for the docs
> (subproject/src/site/xdocs), and even add entries to the FAQs. I think
> your root concern is it is hard for users to follow Action 1 and find
> information, so I think improving the website would go a long way to
> resolving this important observation.
I'm on a very tight schedule with my book work at the moment, but I should
be able to find at least some time this weekend, probably not before then
though. However, before I do that...
Are you saying that it would be OK, at least from your perspective, to
break out Action1 as far as the site organization goes, even if it isn't
an officially recognized sub-project from a management prespective? I
almost wonder if that might be worse...
To clarify my concern... your right, part of it is simply finding
information, and that's really pretty easy to solve, as you say, just some
web site mods should do it for the most part. My larger concern though,
and why I was suggesting Action1 be officially a sub-project separate from
Action2 and Shale, is so that it can take on a life of its own and
continue to evolve separate from everything else (of course always sharing
where possible!), and that it is clear to everyone that that is the
plan... My understanding is that is already the intention and always has
been, but making it its own project makes it, I think, much clearer. It
also perhaps allows people to focus more in contributing.
To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework. What I would like
to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale. And
sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
might it be mixed signals before that time?
> Don
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too
far.)
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> So, I guess the question is, does anyone else think this is a good idea?
> Can we get enough buy-in from people to make it happen? I'm not really
> sure what I could do to help make it happen, but since I brought it up,
> I'll do whatever I can.
>
That's the spirit! :)
This particular decision needs more discussion before we can move
forward on it, but in the meantime, our Action 1 website is hard to
navigate and missing content. If you are volunteering ;), you could
browse through it and make a list of recommendations on how it could be
improved from a user perspective. If you are really ambitious, you can
checkout the action project and create patches for the docs
(subproject/src/site/xdocs), and even add entries to the FAQs. I think
your root concern is it is hard for users to follow Action 1 and find
information, so I think improving the website would go a long way to
resolving this important observation.
Don
> Frank
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too
far.)
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
I certainly won't quibble over the name... I can't believe I'm saying it
now, but I'd prefer Struts Classic :) Not a big deal though, I can
certainly live with Action1, your justifications do make sense.
So, I guess the question is, does anyone else think this is a good idea?
Can we get enough buy-in from people to make it happen? I'm not really
sure what I could do to help make it happen, but since I brought it up,
I'll do whatever I can.
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
AIM: fzammetti
Yahoo: fzammetti
MSN: fzammetti@hotmail.com
Java Web Parts -
http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:44 am, Don Brown said:
> A few weeks ago, my reaction would have definitely been no, Struts
> Action is the project and there are two versions. However, as Action 2
> has moved along, and we've migrated resources like the wiki, jira, and
> Action 1 to Maven 2, I'm starting if you might not be on to something.
> Just from an SVN and JIRA perspective, it is much more natural to treat
> them as two different projects, and I'd argue from a user and website
> perspective as well.
>
> I think the project names should remain the same, but from a project
> management perspective, I'm starting to agree with you they should be
> clearly separate. Keeping Action 1 and Action 2 as the names is
> important as it conveys progress, migration, and similar goals, however,
> I think we would be better off to treat them as to separate projects.
>
> Don
>
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:20 am, Don Brown said:
>>
>>> So again, there is much to do and please do join the efforts. If there
>>> is something we can do to help make the project direction clearer, or
>>> highlight areas that need work, please let us know. These are the
>>> types
>>> of non-code discussions I feel are appropriate for this list as their
>>> end result is more commits and technical involvement.
>>>
>>
>> Don, can I make one suggestion here, or actually, ask a question first?
>> And if by chance it is already the case, I'd like to see it communicated
>> much clearer.
>>
>> What is the status of Action1? What I mean is, what is its standing
>> with
>> relation to SAF2 and Shale? At this point in time, under the Struts
>> umbrella, do we have three projects (Action1, SAF2 and Shale) or two
>> (Action and Shale)?
>>
>> Looking at the web site, the later appears to be the case. If that is
>> NOT
>> currently the case, I believe it should be communicated much clearer,
>> beginning with how it is shown on the Struts site.
>>
>> If that IS the case, I'd like to suggest that there be three separate
>> projects under Struts. If Action1 were allowed to be a separate project
>> under Struts, and maybe we call it Struts Classic (I was against this
>> name
>> some time ago, but I think it makes sense now), I think there would be a
>> lot less anxiety out there about its fate. It could continue to evolve
>> on
>> its own, and people could target their contributions to one or the
>> other.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too
far.)
Posted by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com>.
At 8:44 AM -0700 4/26/06, Don Brown wrote:
>A few weeks ago, my reaction would have definitely been no, Struts
>Action is the project and there are two versions. However, as
>Action 2 has moved along, and we've migrated resources like the
>wiki, jira, and Action 1 to Maven 2, I'm starting if you might not
>be on to something.
>Just from an SVN and JIRA perspective, it is much more natural to
>treat them as two different projects, and I'd argue from a user and
>website perspective as well.
>
>I think the project names should remain the same, but from a project
>management perspective, I'm starting to agree with you they should
>be clearly separate. Keeping Action 1 and Action 2 as the names is
>important as it conveys progress, migration, and similar goals,
>however, I think we would be better off to treat them as to separate
>projects.
+1. The differences between SAF1 and SAF2 are comparable to, for
example, the differences between Maven1 and Maven2, or Tomcat3,
Tomcat4, and Tomcat5, or Cocoon1 and Cocoon2, etc etc etc. I had
always figured we'd make the same kinds of distinctions on our site
that those projects have.
Are there really people out there who have things they want to
contribute to Struts 1.3, but they just aren't because of some
uncertainty about the future? I don't understand this (or maybe I
don't believe it), but if it's true, please don't be shy. Step up
and do what you want to do, discuss it on dev, add issues to the
tracker, etc.
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
"You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
-- Robert Moog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
A few weeks ago, my reaction would have definitely been no, Struts
Action is the project and there are two versions. However, as Action 2
has moved along, and we've migrated resources like the wiki, jira, and
Action 1 to Maven 2, I'm starting if you might not be on to something.
Just from an SVN and JIRA perspective, it is much more natural to treat
them as two different projects, and I'd argue from a user and website
perspective as well.
I think the project names should remain the same, but from a project
management perspective, I'm starting to agree with you they should be
clearly separate. Keeping Action 1 and Action 2 as the names is
important as it conveys progress, migration, and similar goals, however,
I think we would be better off to treat them as to separate projects.
Don
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:20 am, Don Brown said:
>
>> So again, there is much to do and please do join the efforts. If there
>> is something we can do to help make the project direction clearer, or
>> highlight areas that need work, please let us know. These are the types
>> of non-code discussions I feel are appropriate for this list as their
>> end result is more commits and technical involvement.
>>
>
> Don, can I make one suggestion here, or actually, ask a question first?
> And if by chance it is already the case, I'd like to see it communicated
> much clearer.
>
> What is the status of Action1? What I mean is, what is its standing with
> relation to SAF2 and Shale? At this point in time, under the Struts
> umbrella, do we have three projects (Action1, SAF2 and Shale) or two
> (Action and Shale)?
>
> Looking at the web site, the later appears to be the case. If that is NOT
> currently the case, I believe it should be communicated much clearer,
> beginning with how it is shown on the Struts site.
>
> If that IS the case, I'd like to suggest that there be three separate
> projects under Struts. If Action1 were allowed to be a separate project
> under Struts, and maybe we call it Struts Classic (I was against this name
> some time ago, but I think it makes sense now), I think there would be a
> lot less anxiety out there about its fate. It could continue to evolve on
> its own, and people could target their contributions to one or the other.
>
> Frank
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: This has gone too far.
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 4/26/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> If that IS the case, I'd like to suggest that there be three separate
> projects under Struts. If Action1 were allowed to be a separate project
> under Struts, and maybe we call it Struts Classic (I was against this name
> some time ago, but I think it makes sense now), I think there would be a
> lot less anxiety out there about its fate. It could continue to evolve on
> its own, and people could target their contributions to one or the other.
AFAIK, everyone on the PMC would like to see Action1 continue to grow
and evolve. Many of us still have Action1 applications in production,
and we might like to be able to do some work on them without migrating
to Action 2.x or Shale. Though, right now, it seems clear that most of
the committers plan to spend their volunteer hours working on Action2
or Shale.
Action1 doesn't need to be considered a separate framework. We did
that with Shale because the migration to JSF is jarring. But, the
migration to Action2 is a much smoother transition. It is a
transition, just as moving from Maven1 to Maven2 is a transition, but
the learning curve is gentle, and even "refreshing". To me, it's clear
that Action2 is a more highly evolved form of Action1.
If there's an Action1 community willing to do the work, what we need
to see is people doing the same thing for Action1 that CrazyBob
started for Action2. If people are interested in moving forward, let's
see the "rough spots" wiki page for Action1. Then, let's see the
patches to make it happen.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: This has gone too far.
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:20 am, Don Brown said:
> So again, there is much to do and please do join the efforts. If there
> is something we can do to help make the project direction clearer, or
> highlight areas that need work, please let us know. These are the types
> of non-code discussions I feel are appropriate for this list as their
> end result is more commits and technical involvement.
Don, can I make one suggestion here, or actually, ask a question first?
And if by chance it is already the case, I'd like to see it communicated
much clearer.
What is the status of Action1? What I mean is, what is its standing with
relation to SAF2 and Shale? At this point in time, under the Struts
umbrella, do we have three projects (Action1, SAF2 and Shale) or two
(Action and Shale)?
Looking at the web site, the later appears to be the case. If that is NOT
currently the case, I believe it should be communicated much clearer,
beginning with how it is shown on the Struts site.
If that IS the case, I'd like to suggest that there be three separate
projects under Struts. If Action1 were allowed to be a separate project
under Struts, and maybe we call it Struts Classic (I was against this name
some time ago, but I think it makes sense now), I think there would be a
lot less anxiety out there about its fate. It could continue to evolve on
its own, and people could target their contributions to one or the other.
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: This has gone too far.
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Reading this the morning after, ;) I realize I wasn't clear that I
intended to rebuke not the trolls, for in a Meritocracy they hold no
standing, but existing committers and contributors. I'm afraid we have
gotten lax in our commitment to digging into the code and moving the
project forward. The Struts Action 1 situation in particular is
disturbing considering how much attention and discussion it gets.
One of our big problems in the past is bugzilla tickets would be filed,
patches added, and they'd be ignored for months, even years. I'm hoping
this new JIRA instance and ticket work that is going on will help
address that so that patches will be identified and applied sooner, and
it will be easier for a prospective contributor to see what needs to be
done and jump in. I think we've done a bad job of that in the past, and
I'd like to change it.
So again, there is much to do and please do join the efforts. If there
is something we can do to help make the project direction clearer, or
highlight areas that need work, please let us know. These are the types
of non-code discussions I feel are appropriate for this list as their
end result is more commits and technical involvement.
Don
Don Brown wrote:
> How Struts adds committers isn't "fair" - code quality, community
> involvement, trust, and yes, personal taste are all factors. The PMC
> members are the gate keepers, and being human, they show favoritism,
> bias, and sometimes poor judgment. You may not like it, but that's the
> way it is. Great. Can we move on now?
>
> Struts isn't some damn social club, where we sit around and gossip about
> the neighbors. Struts is about building great web frameworks, however,
> I feel we have strayed from this path and lost our focus. If we,
> committers and contributors alike, spent half the time committing code
> and contributing patches as we do bickering, complaining, and "offering
> our opinions", we'd be on Struts 4 by now! Let's stop this nonsense,
> and get back to work!
>
> Do you have too much free time on your hands? Great, there is much to
> be done:
>
> - Struts Action 1: We finally got the build working and have built a
> test build. I haven't heard a single comment from anyone who has
> downloaded it and given it a shot. If you want a stable Struts Action 1
> release and more to come, get off your butt and help out!
>
> - Struts Action 2: With most of the IP code out of the way, we've
> started some great discussions on features to include in the next
> release. While this is important, we also need to get some sort of
> release out by JavaOne. We need people polishing up the code, updating
> wiki docs, testing examples, writing migration guides, and fixing bugs.
>
> - Tiles: For such a popular framework, it is a shame how few people
> contribute (only one active maintainer (!)). Greg is working on a
> standalone version of Tiles that would support Struts, Spring MVC, or
> anyone else. If you use Tiles, jump in and help Greg with the
> refactoring. We definitely will be looking for committers when this
> moves to Jakarta.
>
> - Struts Shale (yes it is an equal Struts project, get over it): There
> still hasn't been a GA release of Shale that I know of. We need people
> writing docs, fixing bugs, and providing key feedback to help polish
> this product.
>
> My personal thanks David Evens for helping out with JIRA, Wendy Smoak
> her hard work for the Maven 2 migration, Ted Husted for the Mailreader
> migration tutorial and training materials, Toby Jee for keeping up with
> bug fixes and working on the ww migration, Patrick Lightbody for the SAF
> 2 Maven 2 work, Phil Zoio for writing Strecks....these are people who
> stepped up to the plate and put their code where their mouth is. Let's
> grow this list!
>
> Don
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: This has gone too far.
Posted by Jonathan Revusky <re...@wanadoo.es>.
Don Brown wrote:
> How Struts adds committers isn't "fair"
I don't think fairness is really the issue. I guess when you talk about
that, you are meaning to imply that anybody who is disagreeing about
certain things is a whiner.
Frank Z., quite diplomatically, used the term "suboptimal". Of course,
that was a euphemism if there ever was one. The record of this Struts
project in moving things forward is utterly dismal. (Obviously, I don't
count the step of bringing in a competing codebase developed outside ASF
and relabeling it as "Apache Struts" as forward progress in this context.)
Rather than fairness, I think the appropriate thing to concentrate on is
effectiveness. The approach you've taken to running the project over the
last several years simply has not been effective.
Given the dismal results, that you have to answer some pointed questions
about your project management practices is really to be expected you
know, Anything else would IMO be abnormal.
> - code quality, community
> involvement, trust, and yes, personal taste are all factors. The PMC
> members are the gate keepers, and being human, they show favoritism,
> bias, and sometimes poor judgment.
Well, in other words, people, being human, make mistakes. However,
*responsible* people take responsibility for their mistaskes. And they
try to learn from it and do better next time.
> You may not like it, but that's the
> way it is.
Don, I don't think you guys are going to really get anywhere with this
approach. I really don't.
> Great. Can we move on now?
I doubt it. I think you're going to have to engage in the discussion.
Well, you might succeed in bullying people into shutting up in this
instance. It has worked before. But the basic issues will just keep
coming back. Eventually, you'll have to engage in the discussion. So I
would say that, since you have to bite the bullet eventually, you might
as well do it now and get the benefits sooner rather than later.
>
> Struts isn't some damn social club, where we sit around and gossip about
> the neighbors.
Well, that it's not some damn social club is why a legitimate discussion
shouldn't be shut down just because it causes discomfort or even
embarassment to some people.
> Struts is about building great web frameworks, however,
> I feel we have strayed from this path and lost our focus. If we,
> committers and contributors alike, spent half the time committing code
> and contributing patches as we do bickering, complaining, and "offering
> our opinions", we'd be on Struts 4 by now! Let's stop this nonsense,
> and get back to work!
>
> Do you have too much free time on your hands? Great, there is much to
> be done:
Don, this basic idea that you can tell people "Shut up and get back to
work"... this is not an approach that I think is going to work very
well. Even in a company setting, where it is more of a valid approach,
since people are getting paid after all, sometimes there has to be an
airing of the issues.
But in this setting, where you can't threaten to fire somebody, hence
causing them and their family significant economic distress, the "shut
up and get back to work" approach is surely doomed to failure.
As a guy who is also admin on a fairly well known open source project,
and has grappled with the issues, I would suggest (strongly) that you
find some other way of motivating people to do some heavy lifting.
Because the approach embodied by this last note of yours is not going to
work.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
>
> - Struts Action 1: We finally got the build working and hav"e built a
> test build. I haven't heard a single comment from anyone who has
> downloaded it and given it a shot. If you want a stable Struts Action 1
> release and more to come, get off your butt and help out!
>
> - Struts Action 2: With most of the IP code out of the way, we've
> started some great discussions on features to include in the next
> release. While this is important, we also need to get some sort of
> release out by JavaOne. We need people polishing up the code, updating
> wiki docs, testing examples, writing migration guides, and fixing bugs.
>
> - Tiles: For such a popular framework, it is a shame how few people
> contribute (only one active maintainer (!)). Greg is working on a
> standalone version of Tiles that would support Struts, Spring MVC, or
> anyone else. If you use Tiles, jump in and help Greg with the
> refactoring. We definitely will be looking for committers when this
> moves to Jakarta.
>
> - Struts Shale (yes it is an equal Struts project, get over it): There
> still hasn't been a GA release of Shale that I know of. We need people
> writing docs, fixing bugs, and providing key feedback to help polish
> this product.
>
> My personal thanks David Evens for helping out with JIRA, Wendy Smoak
> her hard work for the Maven 2 migration, Ted Husted for the Mailreader
> migration tutorial and training materials, Toby Jee for keeping up with
> bug fixes and working on the ww migration, Patrick Lightbody for the SAF
> 2 Maven 2 work, Phil Zoio for writing Strecks....these are people who
> stepped up to the plate and put their code where their mouth is. Let's
> grow this list!
>
> Don
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org