Hi Im on vacation & am writing from my phone... I really just wanted to add that I have been lurking on the mailing list to try & get a feel for the project. I am Looking forward to working on it irrespective of org form. Jeff
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]. >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]. > >@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'. > >Sorry about the long email. :) >Comments? > >Ali -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
