james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: Discussing proposals
Date Thu, 05 Oct 2006 07:45:43 GMT
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Joachim Draeger <jd@joachim-draeger.de> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's like every time at the James project. A proposal is done, some
>> discussion raises up. If a "religious" architecture topic is hit like
>> "too much protocol dependent" there is a lot of discussion for a short
>> time.
>> The problem is discussion hibernates without a result.
> [..]
> Proposals are just proposals, bases for discussion.
> If you leave the discussion out, you run a much higher risk of getting
> vetos, because people tend to not object things they were involed with
> early on. That's a psychological fact.

As I said many times in past, the problem is not discussion: the problem 
is unfinished discussions. Taking part of a discussion and arguing one 
committer proposal have to be taken with much more responsibility. I 
really don't like when people say I don't like this, this should be done 
so and so and then never reply to techcnical questions made after that 
sentence. This is a style that blocks development at all.

So once someone made a proposal, started a discussion and the discussion 
end in nothing done I think that the best approach is the one Joachim 
followed: just start working alone of that thing a simply make it work!

Discussing a concrete thing is much better than discussing something 
that does not exists.

Thanks to this approach we now have an almost working IMAP server: if 
Joachim waited months for us to discuss a new repository interface and 
agree and implement it we would have nothing now.

Instead we have something working and we can now look at it and propose 

Of course this approach has risks: you may develop something that will 
be rejected. But most time when you develop something is because you 
need it. So either way you have to create something as the first goal, 
then try to make it land on the James project as the second goal.

Kudos to Joachim because I think he found "the perfect path" for 
reintroducing IMAP in our codebase: he's code does not need code changes 
on our main codebase and it works.

> What I had in mind, in fact, was to re-animate the discussion, to
> bring it forward and collaborate with you on the topic. (Your current
> code is not available on the project, so I cannot comment on this.
> Former comments suggested to me there were substantial changes since
> July.)
> I am just interested in understanding what you are actually doing, not
> to blocking anything.
>  Bernd

There is a lot on what is going on in Joachim's website and his svn 
repository: now that Joachim is a James Committer he can commit it to 
trunk and keep up with development directly on our repository. This way 
we can collaborate much better on the evolution of IMAP.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message