Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

I am new to the clojure community. What does it mean to "reboot" the project? On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 5:15:49 AM UTC-7, Herwig Hochleitner wrote: > > 2017-07-18 14:48 GMT+02:00 Chas Emerick >: > > I would like to hear here (no more private mails, please! :-) from any

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

A final update: https://github.com/cemerick/nREPL has been reconstituted as described previously, and a release candidate has been deployed to maven central with contents effectively identical to the latest tools.nrepl release (only difference is an ipv6-related bugfix that was encountered in the

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

I have opened two issues on the original nREPL repo: 1. Describing the background and rationale for the work to be done: https://github.com/cemerick/nREPL/issues/1 2. Enumerating the nREPL contributors to obtain explicit permission for their commits to be distributed under the terms of EPL only

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

So, what's the next step here? On 23 July 2017 at 02:16, Colin Fleming wrote: > Are you saying the contrib process is deliberatly made to be difficult for >> the community to contribute to it? > > > No, not at all, just that it's deliberately designed to be exactly

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

> > Are you saying the contrib process is deliberatly made to be difficult for > the community to contribute to it? No, not at all, just that it's deliberately designed to be exactly the way it is, so dedicating a lot of time to trying to change that is likely to be frustrating and fruitless. I

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

> The contrib process is in place because some want it that way - it's very > deliberately by design and AFAICT unlikely to change. Are you saying the contrib process is deliberatly made to be difficult for the community to contribute to it? If so, maybe if it had more obvious tenets, I find

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

> > I'd much rather see nREPL stay within contrib and the renewed effort, that > you propose, to go into ironing out kinks in the contrib process FWIW I don't think this is a realistic option, certainly not for anyone outside of Clojure core. The contrib process is in place because some want it

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

2017-07-18 14:48 GMT+02:00 Chas Emerick : > I would like to hear here (no more private mails, please! :-) from any nREPL users, contributors, etc. As much as possible, I would like not to debate/re-litigate the merits of contrib and its process here; let's focus on what steps

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Alex Miller writes: > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:03:09 PM UTC-5, Chas Emerick wrote: >> (Parenthetically, it strikes me as very strange for a project to have a >> copyright assignment to an individual that hasn't lodged any commits, at >> least insofar as the project

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Hi Chas, I have no hard feelings about the hosting or organisation of the nrepl project. If you feel that a different organisation would improve things, then go for it. In contrast to your invest, I haven't much contributed besides problems and complexity. ;-P If you need anything regarding

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

On 18 July 2017 at 15:48, Chas Emerick wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been approached many, many times over the years (and more frequently > since the development and inclusion of socket-repl) about the potential of > moving nREPL[1] out of clojure contrib…either back to its

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

garet Atwood > > > > *From: *Didier <didi...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:43 PM > *To: *Clojure <clojure@googlegroups.com> > *Subject: *Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib > > > > So do we have any idea of contributions are not m

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

On 20 Jul 2017, at 17:14, Sean Corfield wrote: > A lot of big, well-known FOSS projects require a signed CA and have very > specific contributing processes. Either folks will contribute or they won’t. > I find it hard to believe that nREPL will suddenly get a stream of > contributions that it

RE: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

t;mailto:didi...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:43 PM To: Clojure<mailto:clojure@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib So do we have any idea of contributions are not made because of the CA or Jira? I understand it's hard to estimate how many p

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

So do we have any idea of contributions are not made because of the CA or Jira? I understand it's hard to estimate how many people were discouraged by this. Maybe it should be part of the Clojure survey nexr time. Were you ever discouraged to contribute to a Contrib lib because of Jira? Were

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Why is the EPL a problem? It is pretty much the standard in the Clojure ecosystem, even for non-core libraries. As long as you keep future contributions under the EPL, surely you can just fork and drop the CLA requirement? FWIW, I've been using nREPL for a "Clojure-like" experimental language

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

On 19 July 2017 at 01:03, Chas Emerick wrote: > > > On 7/18/2017 14:40, Alex Miller wrote: > > > If all of the nontrivial contributors to the project decide they >> want to change the license later, do we also need to obtain Rich's >> assent? > > > This has nothing to do with

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Contrib projects do not accept pull requests. They accept only patches submitted via JIRA. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:11 Didier wrote: > I'm not too familiar with the way contribs are managed, isn't tools.nrepl > repo in github? Wouldn't the only step to contribute be to sign

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Contribs are on github, but none of them accept pull requests. All of them use JIRA for tickets, listed here: https://dev.clojure.org/jira/secure/BrowseProjects.jspa#all Some background on the contribution process: https://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Contributing+FAQ Andy On Tue, Jul 18,

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

I'm not too familiar with the way contribs are managed, isn't tools.nrepl repo in github? Wouldn't the only step to contribute be to sign the CA and send a pull request of your changes? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

I don't have much more to add than what others have written - I don't have very strong feelings about this, but it seems worth fixing if the contrib process is a significant barrier to contribution. And if that happens, I agree with Chas that it seems worth taking the time to reboot it properly,

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Of course, my aim would be to gather as much consensus as possible around a single nREPL vector; this thread is the first effort in service of that, with presumably much more ahead. An obvious move for example would be to shim out the legacy namespaces until a major version number change, so that

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

On 7/18/2017 14:40, Alex Miller wrote: > > If all of the nontrivial contributors to the project decide they > want to change the license later, do we also need to obtain Rich's > assent? > > > This has nothing to do with Rich or the contributors. The project is > available as open

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Thanks for continuing to maintain this lib, Chas; I'm glad to see this move to make it more accessible to potential contributors. I believe the original choice of the EPL was made specifically to support this kind of scenario. Personally I see a reboot as being a lot of effort for little gain,

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

FWIW, as someone who's used and made small contributions to nREPL, I'm fine with any of the options (leaving it in contrib, forking, rebooting). My lack of contributions hasn't been due to process around nREPL (my lack of activity on REPLy [1] can validate that) - more around a lack of direct

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:03:09 PM UTC-5, Chas Emerick wrote: > What happens to a codebase that is subject to a CA that is > forked elsewhere? Are future contributions subject to that CA? I assume not, but IANAL. (Blanket IANAL) No. > Does the "Copyright (c) Rich Hickey" banner

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

And I helped! ... cue shake n bake commercial > On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:02, Chas Emerick wrote: > > To be clear ("well ACTUALLY" :-P), development hasn't ceased, just > slowed to a trickle. (There are commits this year, so there?) Part of > that is nREPL being intentionally a

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

To be clear ("well ACTUALLY" :-P), development hasn't ceased, just slowed to a trickle. (There are commits this year, so there?) Part of that is nREPL being intentionally a slow-moving bit of bedrock for other people to build on. That's not to discount my original stipulations (1) and (2) ofc.

Re: Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Hi Chas! This is great news, I'm glad to hear development will resume. What's the downside to just forking? aka why bother rebooting from scratch? > On Jul 18, 2017, at 05:48, Chas Emerick wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've been approached many, many times over the years (and

Migrating nREPL out of Clojure Contrib

Hi all, I've been approached many, many times over the years (and more frequently since the development and inclusion of socket-repl) about the potential of moving nREPL[1] out of clojure contrib…either back to its original location[2], or under one of the various Clojure community