Hi,
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, - - wrote:
Migrating to github sounds cool, but if you stop taking care of debian sources, well, sorry.
It has been made pretty clear before. We are maintaining Cherokee on Github. Target is still to fix a (real) bug each week. The Debian maintainer has said he didn't want to make packages anymore, for good reasons: he couldn't maintain and backport all fixes. Sounds pretty fair to me. There is absolutely nothing in Cherokee that would justify a backport demand. The server architecture that has been released isn't different from any previously release. In this respect the *only* change that would make a true Cherokee 2.0 was the event based system. Which has been developed in a seperate branch, and abandonned for development on Speedy/HTTP2 (and a true SSL fix was released in the master branch).
My primary concern as Cherokee maintainer is having my webserver running as stable as yours. I am deploying Cherokee on all my systems and on my clients servers. In this respect I dislike the fact that anything related to apt removes the 'source' part of 'open source'.
You can get the Big Mac at McDonalds and you can get old "stable" binaries at an apt repository. Demands to get binary updates for << insert your distro here >> is asking McDonalds for organic ingredients, because your burger tastes weird. I find it curious that people are putting their trust in a gratis binary distribution which they are certainly not able to fix theirselves. And considering their distribution's binaries "more stable" than the sourcecode that the upstream developers carefully maintain. It is also taken for granted that an open source project provides binaries to their distribution of choice.
In all my daily work I am making strict layer distinctions I want to operate within given a certain project.
- Providers of raw material - Aggerators of raw material - Integrators or Enhancers of raw material - Service Providers - End-UserI most cases I want to stay at the Provider/Aggregator level of business, and see other businesses flourish in providing services or enhancements of my work. I do not want to compete with them, with offering binaries to my work I am competing with the third layer. This mailinglist should help end-users. If your service provider (or in this respect anyone in this community) doesn't want to provide binary packages you could hire someone that does that for you, or learn how to do it for yourself from the documentation we provide. Certainly you will understand that the only choice you have when something breaks down is to switch products, not to solve your problem. Especially when you fully depend on others and the only choice you have is to wait for a binary update without any true service level agreement.
Obviously this is pretty black and white. And it is pure economics that some projects have a lot of people offering their free or paid time in any of the layers above. If yesterday it was Apache and today it is Nginx that doesn't change why I like prefer architecture of Cherokee and its admin over other open source onces.
So is this project still active? Yes, because bugs get fixed and questions get answered.
Stefan
_______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee !DSPAM:1,50784f2b187332001710960!
_______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
