On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum.wri...@wandisco.com> wrote: > I think the Trac community sees this as a zero-sum game: if people are > contributing to Bloodhound, they *aren't* contributing to Trac. > "Instead, we should try to convince the Bloodhound people that our > philosophy is best, and they should just come over here." Resolving > such philosophical differences and technical goals is difficult at > best, and I don't see it happening soon. But that's okay, there isn't > a globally optimal solution to issue tracking, and we can agree to > experiment with different paths. > But I've probably said too much already. There isn't much more I can > add here, and the last think I want to do at this point is prolong the > agony of this discussion.
Where's the agony? I see the general discussion about forks without consensus as very healthy, and I think it should continue to be discussed till all voices are heard. > [1] Indeed, I know of at least one private proprietary derivative of > Trac, but since it's proprietary, nobody knows about it and nobody > complains. It's the fact that Bloodhound is proposed as open source > which is causing the hullaballoo in the first place. But dear Sir, I don't believe that to be true if I may say so. Had the original proposal been worded as a derivative intended to keep Trac as the foundation, rather than a take-over there wouldn't have been any hullaballoo. I still don't understand why Bloodhound needs to start by forking Trac, without a single line written yet. The architecture with a small core and many plugins versus a complete installable package are not contradicting in any way. Kalle --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
