On 10/23/17, Jason Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > I would argue there is a more fundamental problem with this project. > [...] > > It looks like an abandoned project before you start. It has done for quite > a few years. > > This is why there is little traction from both potential developers and > users.
+1 > > I would propose a fork. Move it away from Apache. Create a new home page > and new working dist with decent user documentation. Abandon all the WIP > cruft. Start over. > (Except for a few minor and irrelevant aspects) I do not think the Apache Way is blocking us from moving forward . It's the inner details of the current architecture (Gary, the other founders of the project and the newer contributors might have a relatively good idea of what I am talking about) that did not allow us to move forward beyond a certain point . The most evident proof of this is that the public issue tracker at b.a.o is not running yet the latest multi-product architecture . I do believe in moving forward with the project following the Apache Way , even if I keep developing my own private fork for other reasons . I already sketched a roadmap in my previous message . The first step to get out of this situation , IMO , should be to start working on a new BEP for a new architecture built on top of BEP-0003 but , at the same time , fixing the problems blocking us from achieving stable deployments. -- Regards, Olemis - @olemislc Apache™ Bloodhound contributor http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound http://blood-hound.net Brython committer http://brython.info http://github.com/brython-dev/brython SciPy Latin America - Cuban Ambassador Chairman of SciPy LA 2017 - http://scipyla.org/conf/2017 Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article:
