Re: Gump

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006, Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> wrote:

> [this doesn't really belong here, but what the hell]

True, we should continue this on general@gump if you want to.

I just note that your perception of the current state of Gump is
remarkably different from mine.

Stefan

Re: Gump

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006, Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> [this doesn't really belong here, but what the hell]
> 
> True, we should continue this on general@gump if you want to.

I will start off a thread there shortly.

> I just note that your perception of the current state of Gump is
> remarkably different from mine.

And I fully respect that and appreciate you telling me so.

But I want to say that I base my perception not on the percentage of
failure that has been steadily increasing since that time we reached
100% years ago (that is probably a maven2 problem and therefore a
technological one).

I'm talking about the fact that gump has been incredibly slow at
absorbing new project and new people.

I'm talking about the fact that we never pass the "it's probably a gump
fault" stage when something wrong shows up.

I'm talking about the fact that people send gump emails to /dev/null
because the signal/noise ratio is unbearable.

and I can go on if you want :-)

-- 
Stefano.