Hi!

Yanni Chiu <yanni at rogers.com> wrote:
> Juan Vuletich wrote:
> > 
> > I heartfully agree with Cees aproach. Back compatibility is a pain in
> > the butt. Let's keep maintainig what people actually uses, and let's
> > start leaving behind stuff that is old, buggy, unmaintained, incomplete,
> > unused, etc.
> 
> I think this is where TFNR is getting off on the wrong foot.
> The "stakeout" of the image makes the assumption that everything
> in the image has somebody who wants it, and somebody who wants
> to own it. Consider that in some cases the original authors
> know it was experimental code and have now abandoned it.
> How likely is it that an owner is going to be found,
> who spends enough time to learn that the code should
> be killed off?

I think we can find people for most of the parts of the image.
And those people are typically already quite knowledgeable of those
parts.
Say Ned for Morphic/eToys for example. 

Some parts may end up not being picked up - and then we will just have
to rally together some small groups to do it cooperatively. The whole
point is that when this is done most of the decisions to scrap stuff etc
can be done within those smaller groups. They are the Stewards. We trust
them.

> This cruft is burdening the entire strategy, presenting
> a barrier that is sufficient to prevent enough momentum
> build up (from enough developers joining).

I am not that negative. :) But we will see.

> IMHO, a strategy that chooses an image and grows it, is
> more likely to gather steam than one that tries to break
> up the existing monolith. If a developer joins the break
> up movement, then it's almost certain that he'd have to
> poke around into strange corners of the image that are
> of little interest to him. OTH, joining a grow it movement
> means learning about a slim image and chasing down missing
> pieces of the functionality that the developer has signed
> on for. Going against the normal developer inclinations
> is going to keep people from signing on.

Well, I think both venues are of use. Let us just try it. Both
approaches.
In parallell.

> --yanni

regards, Göran