On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 02:45 -0400, Stephen Waterbury wrote: > On 05/10/2012 11:18 PM, Lex Berezhny wrote: > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Kees Bos<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Anyway, we've heard about companies thinking of dropping use of > >> pyjamas/pyjs, because of the uncertain future etc. This should be > >> addressed (in my opinion the future of the project depends on companies > >> using it) and embedding in a foundation would certainly help to gain > >> confidence in the future of this project. > > > > Given that pyjs is currently a legal mine field I wouldn't be > > surprised if some companies aren't using it for that reason alone. > > Apache and GPL are incompatible licenses and yet there is quite a bit > > of code in pyjs that's GPL. > > > > Before there is talk of joining foundations, etc, it'd probably be a > > good idea to actually make it safe and legal for companies to use it. > > > > I think this discussion is somewhat of a red herring given there are > > more basic issues that would prevent businesses from using pyjs. After > > the legal problems are resolved the next top priority should be > > quality. It's probably a safe estimate to say that half of the > > messages on the mailing list in the last 6 months were people > > complaining that a commit or merge to fix a problem/add a feature > > broke some other feature or introduced a new bug. The developer rules > > say that commits breaking functionality will be reverted but there > > were at least a dozen times that even Luke had committed broken code > > and nothing got reverted. > > > > What we need is to hook up unit/integration tests to github pushes and > > have a process in place that will actually do something about code > > being committed that is broken. > > > > I think there is a lot of work that still needs to be done before we > > can confidently start shopping the project around to different > > foundations for adoption. > > > > Although personally I think that what pyjs needs a lot more than > > adoption by big organization is for someone to write a killer app. > > That will produce much better results since it will bring publicity > > but also provide a good example of what a large application looks like > > written in pyjs. I think that would be a better investment of time > > than getting org adoption. > > Amen to everything Lex says here. I've been using pyjamas/pyjs > for about a year and have developed a fairly complex in-house > application using it (over 4K lines of pyjamas code). As much as > I enjoy using it and think it has tremendous potential, I have > serious reservations about using it for new projects until I feel > more confident about its future. I think Lex put his finger > firmly on the top priority: quality management (unit tests, > perhaps even a buildbot or equivalent) should be first. Of > course a killer app could be huge, but many projects have been > quite successful without a killer app. However, an open source > project of the scale of pyjs can't succeed for very long if stuff > keeps breaking. Look at Twisted for an example of a strong > quality management system -- their level is very high and > probably overkill for pyjs at this point, but something to > emulate at least. > > Steve >
I think Lex is proposing quite some good stuff here, but I don't think the time frame will be good enough for companies that currently cease using it. I hope the PSF route will take about a week or so from now and I know that this will help some people and companies.
