Wave really lacks a roadmap? Surely that's something that could be hammered out, at least in rough, in this mailing list?
Seems to be some agreement on the need to separate client/server. And I guess with that comes the need for a documented protocol between the two. Is there other prerequests for these? (Not necessarily saying this is the #1 thing, merely something to get the ball rolling on the next few steps to take) ~~~ Thomas & Bertines online review show: http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) On 29 November 2013 05:27, Jeff <j...@kropek.org> wrote: > 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.
