Will the problem get solved if the delta store is built on mongodb? I've created an issue for this. [WAVE-399] Mongodb delta store - ASF JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WAVE-399
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Fleeky Flanco <fle...@gmail.com> wrote: > @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). > > this is precisely Why we have to dogfood it, because when the problems > happen in something semi critical like a discussion about wave it will more > likely get fixed. > > im glad someone is finally bringing all of this up though, it needed to be > said. > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 28 Nov 2013, at 15:18, Ali Lown 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. > >> > > > > Sad :-| > > > > > > 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). > >> > > > > The Incubator has a specific goal. Maybe once the project has an active > > (developing!) community again, the ASF might be the right place again. > One > > large benefit speaking for such an org as the ASF is that we maintain a > > clean IP. Its reducing risk for companies. However, if you start > carefully > > with that at GitHub too its no problem. Not even to come back. > > > > > > (With retirement: what happens to the project's source code license? > >> Does it become public domain instead of licensed to the ASF?) > >> > > > > In ASF terms it goes to the "attic" which is a read-only repository. The > > code there remains in AL 2.0. > > With AL 2.0 it is possible for you to "fork" it to GitHub which is more > or > > less what happens. You can > > work on the code as you like and release your own packages in the way you > > like. > > However you can't simply change the license of some existing code. I > don't > > know the specifics but if you plan > > to change the license it's better to ask some other folks here at the > ASF. > > If want to keep AL 2.0 which I would > > love, then no problem. > > > > There will be one issue to solve which is the trademarks thing. To my > > knowledge the trademark has been transferred to the ASF. > > We need to ask at Apache Branding if you want to keep the current names. > > Usually the ASF keeps trademarks. In example, the Apache iBatis > > project renamed itself to MyBatis after moving away. > > > > However in incubating projects I have seen people taking away the names > > too, like Zeta Components. > > > > Once this has been cleared it should be no problem for you to move on. > > > > Please note that you should set up a new mailinglist before the > retirement > > happens. ML are closed once the project retires. And you certainly want > to > > get people moving to the new resource before that happens. > > > > Please let me know if you have any more questions. > > > > Cheers > > Christian > > > > > > > > > >> > >> @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 > >> > > > > > > --- > > http://www.grobmeier.de > > @grobmeier > > GPG: 0xA5CC90DB > > >
