Hi, On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:30:37PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > An healthy community dealing with openvpn need to gather all resources > that are acting at that niche. > There is no reason why we should not invite these maintainer to be > part of the openvpn project, on the contrary, we gain more resources, > more professionals.
And how exactly will "fragment the openvpn source tree into many small
packages" invite more contribution?
I, for one, will think twice about contributing to a project where I have
to figure out which of the 470 packages I need to download before I can
even *start* looking at things.
> Why should we define the scope of the openvpn project based on the
> legacy james svn tree?
Why not?
> Can't we progress?
Why is that progress?
Change always has drawbacks. If the plus sides outweighs the drawbacks,
change is good. Change for change's sake, "just because you can change
it", is not.
> I would like to see this community growing... all UI/management/plugin
> developers working under the same roof.
>
> It is healthy to the project = more resources.
> It is healthy to the users = one stop shop, better integration.
*one stop*. Thanks for saying that. This is a strong argument against
fragmenting our source tree.
(I see you coming up with "why not have the different platform backends
in their own repositories each, because a FreeBSD developer would not
need the source files for Linux" next - and there is madness, not sanity)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
pgpI5pLTejoTq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
