There's alot of good ideas in acs 4.x, and I think we should try and find out which ones work well before we change things.
Considering that we are *this close* to having the whole thing ported (or at least the kernel) I think that Dan's point is very well taken.
Currently there are very few people intimately familiar with ACS positives and negatives. It would seem that once the entire system, as aD left it, is available in OpenACS there will be a whole bunch of people banging on it. So many people will be available to find the warts and identify creative ways of fixing them.
Also, any substantial fix delays the release, even by a little bit. I hate to be the nudge here, but I think it needs to be very, very clear how many people are staking a lot on this port (or at least how much we are, if anyone gives a s**t). We will be contributing quite heavily to the port once it begins because there are so many modules we'll need for current clients. So we're really banking that the core modules will be ready and working according to the ways (even if they suck) we're familiar with.
I don't want to sound like a curmudgeon or someone that is ungrateful for the considerable work the porters are doing. Also, I think these suggestions are absolutely great. I just wonder whether it would be more effective to consider these suggestions as feature requests that will be implemented for the next release.
Is this basically what you meant, Dan?
talli
