Following up Upayavira, I will be very glad to help anyone wanting to start with SwellRT's source code. In this regard I suggest...
a) invite you all to *join our Gitter chat *( https://gitter.im/P2Pvalue/swellrt) to reach me out and other SwellRT contributors, and ask directly doubts, just chat about what can be done, or just know us better. Please consider timezone, we are based on Spain (GMT+2) ;) b) encourage you to *share here your desires* about what would you like to do in order to discover shared interests (for example, lately I am thinking about to reimplement Wave server using Akka framework (http://akka.io/), to complete the Android client and to manage wave's snapshots instead of deltas when waves are loaded) Also someone would prefer to code UI, in that case checkout the SwellRT-based text editor built with Angular2: https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-pad / http://jetpad-int.devialab.rocks/ c) to schedule *video calls to explain tech details* about SwellRT and also I will be happy to explain any original Wave's code part I know. Thomas: I think the simplest idea is SwellRT become main branch and to add recent Wave's work if it is necessary. Of course, any documentation and resources would be given to Wave too. 2016-10-12 15:08 GMT+02:00 Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com>: > If we are doing things for SwellRTs benefit, it seems like it should > all be upto Pablo to me. > As the main developer of SwellRT he has the most to risk, and any > requirements or prerequisites he feels necessary to mitage that risk > he should specify and we should accommodate. > I certainly don't want any harm to come to the work that has been done > on SwellRT. > > I just feel adding a prerequisite at apaches end of "we need more > people active at SwellRT" is a bit weird after being given such a > generous offer. > > --- > > * Adam - Indeed the link seems to be for proposal for things entering > incubation. I think aspects of the voting section still make sense > though. Certainly both a summery and details of the proposal is > needed. > > Last I heard the plan was simply to let SwellRT become the main > branch. So no code merging as such, just a replacement with this fork > (with the acknowledgement of some recent work might be lost at Apaches > side). > > SwellRT has good documentation of its API etc, so presumably this also > would also be brought in somehow? >
