xc/programs considered harmful

[Egbert Eich]

Kevin E Martin writes:
 > 
 > Many of us have talked about this move to a modular tree but most are
 > currently caught up in the 6.8.2 release.  I too would like to see us
 > move forward on the modularization front, but I don't think that
 > removing bits from the monolithic tree is the right answer to get us
 > moving forward.

At least not until some prerequisites are met.
prooving to people that modularization is feasable for them
is better than trying to force them to a less than certain
future by trying to take away from them bit by bit.
 > 
 > There will still be people that need to maintain the old monolithic
 > tree, and I think it is fine for them to do so.  The main reason for
 > this is that there will be vendors that will take time to move their
 > internal X development and releases over to a modular system -- not
 > everyone can switch as fast as you or I can.  And, removing useful bits
 > from that tree would cause significant problems for those vendors that
 > are not ready to move.  I think a better proposal would be to map out a
 > transition plan, keep the old monolithic tree around until the
 > transition is complete, and then deprecate it after we've shown that a
 > modular release is just as stable and reliable as the old monolithic
 > ones (or hopefully much more stable with better features).
 > 
 > I would like to see a concerted effort to define exactly how the
 > transition will occur, but I agree with others that perhaps it is going
 > to be difficult to get consensus right now since many people are about
 > to leave for the holidays and some already have.  There are several
 > proposals that have been floating around, which should be discussed.
 > Keith Packard and I (and others) talked about one at a recent meeting,
 > which I will try to write up over the weekend so that we can discuss it
 > here.
 > 

This may be a good start.

	Egbert.