Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users writes: > That, *that* ^^^, is my point. I want to take that on, I want to > work with contributors to commit their vetted and tested patches > into the mm2 branch, I've basically been told to go somewhere else > to do it.
You have not been told to go elsewhere. You've been told you're free to use some of our resources, and I would be happy to include the Mailman 2 repo among them (it's not mine to give but I would support it). We can and should cooperate in many ways, I believe. But: your goals are nearly disjoint from ours[1], and the work you propose to do far more limited. The teams will probably be completely disjoint, and there probably will be no synergies between them because of the divergence of the development platforms and the architectures of the applications. I want those facts recognized by both teams and made clear to Mailman users, and I suspect so will other members of current Mailman core team. If it turns out that the teams intersect substantially, and/or there are development or support synergies involved, then I would reconsider my position. > I think who/m ever takes it on should be part of the Mailman Team. Given the facts stated above, I don't see why. You *won't* be part of the Mailman small-t team that I'm on, any more than Brian is part of my team while he develops Affinity. You're part of the Mailman community, as is Affinity, and as is Brian in many roles as well as Affinity. I can speak for Mailman core in saying we're happy to have you both. All three projects are rooted in Mailman 2 (and before that Mailman 1!), and there's a future for all three. It's just that the future for Mailman 3 and Affinity is growth, while the future for Mailman 2 is retirement. I see your role as (unavoidably) making that retirement a very graceful one, and perhaps delaying it by a bit. But there's no need for coordination with the forward-looking part of the problem, and several reasons against. > There is absolutely no reason against, and there are certainly > several examples for, having 2 or more active development branches > in an open source (or closed source for that matter) project. Jim, you may not know better, but I do. *I've done that*, in XEmacs (I have the T-shirt! as project lead) and in Python (as gadfly and onlooker). It's painful and distracting for the core development team, so there are two reasons not to do it for you. The question for you is what benefit there is to anyone in having Mailman 2 maintenance inside the Mailman Project going forward. The Mailman Project certainly doesn't want to encourage new installations of Mailman 2. Encouraging new use of obsolete[2] code definitely was the effect of maintaining multiple branches of XEmacs and Python inside their respective projects. Footnotes: [1] We share wanting Mailman 2 users to be happy. But as Brian has forcefully advocated, we believe that in the not-so-long run, the path to happiness for Mailman 2 users is migration to Mailman 3. [2] In the sense of pragmatically unmaintainable in the long run. ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
