xc/programs considered harmful

[Egbert Eich]

Owen Taylor writes:
 > 
 > What really disappoints me here is that modularization has been 
 > discussed, experimented with, tried out for several years, and nobody
 > has sat down and wrote down a concrete plan for:
 > 
 >  - How will the code be structured in CVS
 >  - What will be the released tarballs
 >  - What are the stages for moving code to match 
 > 
 > If I hadn't talked to people about it in person, I wouldn't believe
 > that people even had a plan.
 > 
 > Such a plan could be debated upon, refined and agreed upon. I don't
 > think "if nobody objects I'm going to start moving things" is a 
 > decent way of making this kind of decision. For one thing, *some*
 > people will (as we've seen on this thread) object, even if there
 > is a general consensus.

Owen, 

thank you!
Your comment gives this discussion the direction is should have had
all along.

The fact that there is no plan and no certainty triggers objections.
I do understand that those who have been dealing with modularization
for a while don't feel the pain of those who are not on this page
yet and who are expected to transition.
This however needs to be overcome and we need to put the pieces of
the modular environment to the test of a larger audience.

 > 
 > It's great if development can proceed by consensus, rather than 
 > having to be voted upon. But I don't see how there could be a 
 > consensus on something that's just in the head of a small subset
 > of people. Proceeding to make changes before documenting and 
 > explaining the plan is just inviting confusion, flamage, and
 > motion in circles.
 > 

Yes!

Cheers,
	Egbert.