Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

I don't have much more to add than what others have written - I don't have very strong feelings about this, but it seems worth fixing if the contrib process is a significant barrier to contribution. And if that happens, I agree with Chas that it seems worth taking the time to reboot it properly,

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Of course, my aim would be to gather as much consensus as possible around a single nREPL vector; this thread is the first effort in service of that, with presumably much more ahead. An obvious move for example would be to shim out the legacy namespaces until a major version number change, so that

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

On 7/18/2017 14:40, Alex Miller wrote: > > If all of the nontrivial contributors to the project decide they > want to change the license later, do we also need to obtain Rich's > assent? > > > This has nothing to do with Rich or the contributors. The project is > available as open

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Thanks for continuing to maintain this lib, Chas; I'm glad to see this move to make it more accessible to potential contributors. I believe the original choice of the EPL was made specifically to support this kind of scenario. Personally I see a reboot as being a lot of effort for little gain,

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

FWIW, as someone who's used and made small contributions to nREPL, I'm fine with any of the options (leaving it in contrib, forking, rebooting). My lack of contributions hasn't been due to process around nREPL (my lack of activity on REPLy [1] can validate that) - more around a lack of direct

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:03:09 PM UTC-5, Chas Emerick wrote: > What happens to a codebase that is subject to a CA that is > forked elsewhere? Are future contributions subject to that CA? I assume not, but IANAL. (Blanket IANAL) No. > Does the "Copyright (c) Rich Hickey" banner

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

And I helped! ... cue shake n bake commercial > On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:02, Chas Emerick wrote: > > To be clear ("well ACTUALLY" :-P), development hasn't ceased, just > slowed to a trickle. (There are commits this year, so there?) Part of > that is nREPL being intentionally a

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

To be clear ("well ACTUALLY" :-P), development hasn't ceased, just slowed to a trickle. (There are commits this year, so there?) Part of that is nREPL being intentionally a slow-moving bit of bedrock for other people to build on. That's not to discount my original stipulations (1) and (2) ofc.

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Hi Chas! This is great news, I'm glad to hear development will resume. What's the downside to just forking? aka why bother rebooting from scratch? > On Jul 18, 2017, at 05:48, Chas Emerick wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've been approached many, many times over the years (and

Wrote a beginner om-next tutorail

I added a beginner om-next tutorial here: https://github.com/ftravers/missing-links Feedback welcome. Thanks, Fenton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts

Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Hi all, I've been approached many, many times over the years (and more frequently since the development and inclusion of socket-repl) about the potential of moving nREPL[1] out of clojure contrib…either back to its original location[2], or under one of the various Clojure community