[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS]
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS] |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:38:21 -0700 (PDT) |
> Zack Brown
>> Tom Lord
>>> Zack Brown
>>> Each project has its own set of goals, and those goals don't
>>> overlap as much as you might think. So in practical terms,
>>> there's no compelling reason why any of them should abandon
>>> what their doing, in order to go do work on one of the others.
Again: you're making up a myth there out of whole cloth. I'll explain
further below.
>> I think that what you're missing when you reach that conclusion is an
>> understanding of arch as separable components that can be described as
>> interoperability specifications and fundamental capabilities based on
>> top of them -- arch as generic architecture rather than specific
>> realization of that architecture.
> That's a great feature of arch, but it's not the holy
> grail. Other projects have other ideas, and they disagree with
> you. It's not about ego (as you claimed), it's about believing
> something else.
> You seem to have the attitude of "but my idea is the best,
> therefore anyone who disagrees is doing so out of ego." You see,
> it's *your* ego that's involved, not theirs.
Ok, that's the other part you're missing: the explanation for why
you're making up a myth.
You're assuming that I'm reacting to disagreement. In the case of
svn, I'm not reacting to disagreement. I'm reacting to refusal to
understand/consider the issues well enough to form a disagreement, in
the face of ample overtures laying out the basics and offering to work
through the details.
I'm reacting to a breakdown of how civilized engineers in positions of
social responsibility (a condition both I and the svn engineers find
ourselves in) should behave. I don't see a disagreement: I see a
breakdown of those extra-economic processes by which engineers provide
checks and balances on the economic authorities within whose domains
they operate.
> > Let me try to expain it this way:
> [very interesting description snipped]
>
> > Now, let's suppose you have a problem you want to solve such as "Build
> > a revision control system with a recognizably CVS-like user interface;
> > with CVS-like access performance characteristics for file contents in
> > an arbitrary revision, ....etc."
> > I claim that it is both practical and worthwhile to consider how to
> > solve each of those problems within the context of the arch
> > architecture (and, by extension, within the context of existing code).
> > Practical because each of them fits in to the architecture (and code)
> > in a reasonably clean way. Worthwhile because, taking that approach
> > will have the result that the product system will have the sum of all
> > of those features.
> I agree with you. But your claim that the other projects were avoiding
> this conclusion out of ego, is off the wall.
Well, please let me retract the word "ego", then. I use it in a
particular way. I think it is not the same way you use it. Please
just take me as pointing to a problem, where engineers have failed to
live up to the duties imposed by their capabilities:
A bifurcation of effort and resources persists that is not well
supported by a bifurcation of the design space. The social
implications of deployment under such a condition are, at the very
least, deserving of critical attention.
> I think a much more likely
> explanation is one of the following:
> 1) the projects are already underway, and the developers don't want to
> abandon their work
But why not exhibit a better effort at trying to understand its
relationship to related work?
> 2) the developers of the other projects don't sufficiently understand
> how to map their problems onto the arch system
That is not a hard or terribly time-consuming problem to solve.
> 3) the developers of the other projects don't have faith that mapping
> their problems onto the arch system will result in as good a solution as
> what they are currently working towards.
"faith"?
> Once upon a time (around when you created the changeset mailing list) you
> were working fairly closely with Subversion people, to integrate arch at
> the svn back end. Where did that go?
They were not participating, they were obfuscating. They were not
giving "uptake" to the issues, if that means anything to you.
> > OpenCM explicitly does _not_ chase a grand idea: it aims at a solid,
> > practically studied, and academically published exploration of a
> > handful of narrow ideas that arose out of the needs of Eros.
> You say tomato, I say tomahto. To them, it's a grand idea. To you, it's
> something that should be abandoned in favor of arch.
Stop putting words in my mouth. That is not even close to what I
said about the OpenCM project.
> > From a technical point of view, I'm not sure that breaking down
> > projects into "chases BitKeeper" vs. "chases CVS" vs. "chases a grand
> > idea" is a helpfully useful distinction. It seems to rely an
> > assumption that there is some important technical distinction implied
> > between these various non-technical goals -- I tend to disbelieve that
> > assumption.
> > The kind of "storyboarding" your doing here, making up a mythology of
> > these projects, seems arbitrary and potentially harmful.
> I'm just calling it like I see it. I could be wrong.
You are.
-t
- [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Robert Collins, 2003/09/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Tom Lord, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Zack Brown, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Tom Lord, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], David Brown, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Zack Brown, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Tom Lord, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Zack Brown, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS],
Tom Lord <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why so many version control projects?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Tom Lord, 2003/09/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Miles Bader, 2003/09/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Zack Brown, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Zack Brown, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Zack Brown, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, MJ Ray, 2003/09/25