incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Frank R." <renfeng...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Incubation status
Date Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:52:36 GMT
I put some inline comments. Hope it won't be too hard to read.


On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Ali Lown <ali@lown.me.uk> wrote:

> @Christian:
> >Playing the devils advocate I ask you (again):
>
> Is this still Devil's advocate though? I have had a very similar email
> sitting in my drafts for the last month asking the same questions
> about the future of Wave.
>
> >Do you folks believe the incubator can ever be completed as it is now?
> >If you believe yes, please let me know why or how we can achieve that
> goal.
> >Otherwise my recommendation is to move Wave to GitHub and close the
> incubation until the community around Wave has grown.
>
> I shall answer your questions throughout this email, though it
> probably suffices to say that I no longer think Apache Incubator is
> the right place for Wave (in its current form).
> (With retirement: what happens to the project's source code license?
> Does it become public domain instead of licensed to the ASF?)
>
>
> @FrankR:
> >You already have it - wave on github. Here,
> https://github.com/apache/wave
>
> Yes, the code is on GitHub. (Though this is simply a one-mirror of the
> Apache SVN tree).
> [Though, if we retire the project that will no longer exist - I
> suggest watching one of the personal trees (e.g. mine)
> https://github.com/alown/wave].
>
I've also made a clone, https://github.com/renfeng/wave. The question is
will it disappear if https://github.com/apache/wave is removed? It is the
case for clones of private github repositories.


> When people are calling for GitHub, they are actually asking for the
> development style that it uses: Git, Pull Requests, Quick-forking,
> Less 'paperwork'. [And to some extent the 'coolness' factor - which is
> not to be underestimated for getting development support].
>
You got the point.


>
> @Fleeky:
> >lets finally have discussion for development happen on a public wave ;)
>
> I agree that the dogfooding should really have been a thing, but it
> hasn't been possible here. (Though I hestitate to say whether Wave is
> stable enough for multiple users heavily editing a Wave - my anecdotal
> data says it tends to 'get stuck' around the 100 blips mark).
>
> @Thomas:
> > Speaking as someone unable to contribute code to the client as its too
> > heavily tide into the server (which I cant make heads not tails of),
>
> This is a major contention point. It is definitely too tied together,
> but because of this, it is very difficult to separate it now... (But
> this is something that must be done).
>
> @Thomas/FrankR:
> >how will any move effect things? how will it help? wont it just be
> rearranging
> > things again that have little, if anything, to do with getting anything
> > actually done?
>
> It would indeed seem mostly arbitrary with regards to the tooling. The
> ethic however is quite different for GH projects, compared to Apache
> projects. (And I would argue it is this, that is part of the reason we
> struggle to maintain active developers here).
>
> The other problem, is that at ~500,000 LOC of Java, it is not easy for
> new people to get involved. (@Ewan: This ties in to your point, but it
> would take more than a few weeks to get someone familiar with this
> codebase [I have been focused almost exclusively on the server code
> for the last ~3 years, but I still couldn't tell you exactly how it
> all fits together - which is why the corruption issues are still
> outstanding]).
>
> > I am still massively enthusiastic about WFP as a communication method,
> and
> > making a good reference client and server is the way to push it.
>
> This I agree with, but it also tells us what our actual aim should be:
> A clearly separated library for using WFP to create things - of which
> the client/server are examples...
>
> Ultimately, from my point of view, a move to GitHub would provide us
> with several things:
> - Full Git integration (The Apache system is still very awkward to use
> and git-svn still chokes on things occasionally).
> - The GitHub 'ethic' - hard to explain
> - The opportunity to change the working style. I feel that the
> 'meritocracy' approach only works well for clearly established
> projects. Wave has too many options - and it is this that is dividing
> the effort going in to it. Making decisions here is proving incredibly
> difficult, getting votes for releases is very difficult, etc. As such,
> I would push for a much clearer philosophy of the 'new project'.
>
Thanks for explaining. I agree. Wave shall get freed.


>
> Sorry about the long email. :)
> Comments?
>
> Ali
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message