tim Rowledge skrev:
>
> On 24-Jan-06, at 11:22 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>
>>
>> Now, from my point of view, my motivations are simple: Technically, I 
>> need a robust basis for the work going on in Tweak/Croquet. The 
>> smaller the basis the better because it limits maintenance efforts. 
>> If you look at the work I do for the community you'll find that there 
>> is an obvious overlap of interests: ToolBuilder, Graphics, FFI, 
>> Compression are all core technologies that we use heavily in our 
>> projects and where it makes perfect sense to put some work in.
>>
>> In the larger picture, because of the dependency on other parts of 
>> the system, I am in the conservative camp - changes are generally bad 
>> since we have no control and little influence on what precisely 
>> happens where (just two days ago I got reminded again how small that 
>> influence is in practice). You should therefore be prepared that if I 
>> comment on such issues that I'll raise the conservative voice - this 
>> is part of my responsibility to the other projects I'm in.
>
> Here you are expressing the major problem in a group project-
> - You want everything else to stay the same so your massive changes 
> can go ahead.
> - So does everyone else doing any work!
>
> We simply can't make any useful progress under such conditions. 
> Forward progress causes breakage and it costs much effort to provide 
> invisible mogration support. Spending time on that prevents forward 
> progress - and puts people off ever bothering.
>
> tim
> -- 
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> If you never try anything new, you'll miss out on many of life's great 
> disappointments
:-)
Karl
>
>
>
>
>