I put some inline comments. Hope it won't be too hard to read.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > @Christian: > >Playing the devils advocate I ask you (again): > > Is this still Devil's advocate though? I have had a very similar email > sitting in my drafts for the last month asking the same questions > about the future of Wave. > > >Do you folks believe the incubator can ever be completed as it is now? > >If you believe yes, please let me know why or how we can achieve that > goal. > >Otherwise my recommendation is to move Wave to GitHub and close the > incubation until the community around Wave has grown. > > I shall answer your questions throughout this email, though it > probably suffices to say that I no longer think Apache Incubator is > the right place for Wave (in its current form). > (With retirement: what happens to the project's source code license? > Does it become public domain instead of licensed to the ASF?) > > > @FrankR: > >You already have it - wave on github. Here, > https://github.com/apache/wave > > Yes, the code is on GitHub. (Though this is simply a one-mirror of the > Apache SVN tree). > [Though, if we retire the project that will no longer exist - I > suggest watching one of the personal trees (e.g. mine) > https://github.com/alown/wave]. > I've also made a clone, https://github.com/renfeng/wave. The question is will it disappear if https://github.com/apache/wave is removed? It is the case for clones of private github repositories. > When people are calling for GitHub, they are actually asking for the > development style that it uses: Git, Pull Requests, Quick-forking, > Less 'paperwork'. [And to some extent the 'coolness' factor - which is > not to be underestimated for getting development support]. > You got the point. > > @Fleeky: > >lets finally have discussion for development happen on a public wave ;) > > I agree that the dogfooding should really have been a thing, but it > hasn't been possible here. (Though I hestitate to say whether Wave is > stable enough for multiple users heavily editing a Wave - my anecdotal > data says it tends to 'get stuck' around the 100 blips mark). > > @Thomas: > > Speaking as someone unable to contribute code to the client as its too > > heavily tide into the server (which I cant make heads not tails of), > > This is a major contention point. It is definitely too tied together, > but because of this, it is very difficult to separate it now... (But > this is something that must be done). > > @Thomas/FrankR: > >how will any move effect things? how will it help? wont it just be > rearranging > > things again that have little, if anything, to do with getting anything > > actually done? > > It would indeed seem mostly arbitrary with regards to the tooling. The > ethic however is quite different for GH projects, compared to Apache > projects. (And I would argue it is this, that is part of the reason we > struggle to maintain active developers here). > > The other problem, is that at ~500,000 LOC of Java, it is not easy for > new people to get involved. (@Ewan: This ties in to your point, but it > would take more than a few weeks to get someone familiar with this > codebase [I have been focused almost exclusively on the server code > for the last ~3 years, but I still couldn't tell you exactly how it > all fits together - which is why the corruption issues are still > outstanding]). > > > I am still massively enthusiastic about WFP as a communication method, > and > > making a good reference client and server is the way to push it. > > This I agree with, but it also tells us what our actual aim should be: > A clearly separated library for using WFP to create things - of which > the client/server are examples... > > Ultimately, from my point of view, a move to GitHub would provide us > with several things: > - Full Git integration (The Apache system is still very awkward to use > and git-svn still chokes on things occasionally). > - The GitHub 'ethic' - hard to explain > - The opportunity to change the working style. I feel that the > 'meritocracy' approach only works well for clearly established > projects. Wave has too many options - and it is this that is dividing > the effort going in to it. Making decisions here is proving incredibly > difficult, getting votes for releases is very difficult, etc. As such, > I would push for a much clearer philosophy of the 'new project'. > Thanks for explaining. I agree. Wave shall get freed. > > Sorry about the long email. :) > Comments? > > Ali >
