This is all good to hear. There's two things here - with SwellRT's permission, we can import their code into our Git. We can start using it. Then, we can see whether we get sufficient momentum for SwellRT to want to continue their development over here. There's quite a few ways we can work this...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, at 10:49 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > Well, I am not sure SwellRTs committer base, or how many will switch > over to Apache. But I also see no harm in Apache wavers, either > committers commentators or lurkers, contributing to SwellRT right now. > I > > As someone with zero experience of SwellRT, and only limited > Javascript skills, I found it very easy setting up the server and > writing a simple test app. > The CollaborativeObject model seems very intuitive, and the docs guide > the process well. > I haven't looked at the server-side code beyond getting it to run, but > so far everything's been pretty positive. Most things that put me off > before arnt there, so hopefully others that try it will feel the same. > There's no GWT, which I am sure many will celebrate - although for me > personally I'll probably end up writing a GWT wrapper for the SwellRT > client javascipt so I can use it myself ;) > > -- > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > > On 20 October 2016 at 18:31, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > These are great suggestions Thomas. What I'm suggesting is that I want > > to avoid porting SwellRT over to Apache, only for it to fail here due to > > lack of activity, when it was actually fine where it was. > > > > We need to make sure, out of respect for SwellRT, that it can gain a > > level of traction that makes it worth the effort porting it to Apache. > > > > The suggested steps you outline below are a great part of that. > > > > Upayavira > > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, at 02:55 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > >> Any consensus then on how to move forward? > >> I've signed up and started looking around swellrt. Only been able to > >> ""debug"" the setup instructions so far, but I hope to contribute > >> more. > >> > >> If the agreed logic is "SwellRT needs to show more activity before it > >> can become the main apache branch", then I feel everyone in this list > >> should at least be signing onto Gitter > >> (https://gitter.im/P2Pvalue/swellrt) and taking a look around the > >> project/related projects to see if theres anything that takes their > >> fancy. > >> > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-android > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/angular-swellrt > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-pad > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-java > >> > >> Theres probably a broad enough range that most people can contribute > >> something. > >> -- > >> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > >> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > >> > >> > >> On 15 October 2016 at 20:52, Bradley D. Thornton <brad...@northtech.us> > >> wrote: > >> > This is the link below that I cannot seem to locate. > >> > > >> > > >> > On 8/30/2016 11:25 PM, Adam John wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Created a GitHub organization, added each of the available repos: > >> >> https://github.com/ApacheWave > >> >> > >> >> I think I invited everyone on this thread - however there are many > >> >> others > >> >> on the list. > >> >> All are welcome. > >> >> > >> >> Loss of Apache incubator status is significant as it means also > >> >> organizational loss, tools lost, and would effectively put a nail in the > >> >> coffin for the project. > >> >> > >> >> WebCMS, Jira, Jenkins, and Travis are all valuable tools, and part of > >> >> Incubator status. > >> >> > >> >> Quality code review (thanks, vega and wisebaldone etc) and an > >> >> established > >> >> process for the inclusion of new contributions by people familiar with > >> >> existing approaches and the work in progress... all of this is > >> >> significant. > >> >> > >> >> The people on this list - and even the list itself - both a service and > >> >> an > >> >> organization that would be a significant loss in any transition... > >> >> > >> >> I think the safety of the incubator is important, for these reasons and > >> >> more; and there needs to be improved communication, planning and > >> >> coordination... here again, just my opinion. > >> >> > >> >> AJ > >> >> > >> >> Adam John > >> >> (914) 623-8433 > >> >> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn > >> >> <http://mradamjohn.com/> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> The best future for Wave at Apache would, I think be to start an > >> >>> entirely new project at GitHub, and implement a Wave system that people > >> >>> can actually understand. Once that gains traction, come back to the > >> >>> Incubator and ask to resurrect Apache Wave with that new codebase. > >> >>> > >> >>> The current codebase seems to be simply too complex for people to be > >> >>> able to pick up. The idea stands as a good one, but the code is just > >> >>> too > >> >>> complex. > >> >>> > >> >>> Upayavira > >> >>> > >> >>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 09:58 PM, Taylor Fahlman wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I've been a reader of this list for a while. I am another one of the > >> >>>> people > >> >>>> who would love to contribute, but literally have no idea where to > >> >>>> start. > >> >>>> I > >> >>>> really think that if the code was divided a bit more it'd be easier to > >> >>>> contribute, because I want to see this project keep going. It really > >> >>>> does > >> >>>> have a lot of potential in the current climate of silo-ed > >> >>>> communication > >> >>>> systems. An easy docker image would really help too. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:54 PM Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> While the code will always be there in some form, is there any real > >> >>>>> hope outside of Apache though? will it not just fizzle out? > >> >>>>> Apache provides somewhat needed pressure, structure and to some > >> >>>>> extent > >> >>>>> even prestige. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> While retirement is understandable necessity for things without > >> >>>>> progress, its nevertheless sad for a project with such potential. Is > >> >>>>> it possible to put a call out for developers? a last warning? a > >> >>>>> advert? something beyond this list? > >> >>>>> I have no idea what form it would take though. I am so ignorant with > >> >>>>> big projects, both socially and structurally. Theres tools out there > >> >>>>> supposed to help motivate and organised (www.teamily.com) dont know > >> >>>>> how effectively they are though. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> It just all seems such a waste for wave to die, its death marking a > >> >>>>> little lost hope for the open web to recover some ground from the > >> >>>>> closed hubs that dominate today. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -- > >> >>>>> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > >> >>>>> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On 30 August 2016 at 21:41, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Michael, > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> As I said earlier in this thread, retirement means the closure of an > >> >>>>>> "apache" community. The code is already open source. So long as the > >> >>>>>> trademark and the Apache License V2 on the code are respected, as > >> >>> > >> >>> now, > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> anyone is free to do what they like with the code. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Thus, if someone (or someones) wanted to move it to Github, that'd > >> >>>>>> be > >> >>>>>> fine. I'm sure Apache wouldn't object to them using the name "Wave" > >> >>> > >> >>> in > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> some form. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Upayavira > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 08:54 PM, Michael MacFadden wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Yuri, > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Being a mostly silent participant at this point. I would tend to > >> >>> > >> >>> agree > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> with you. I think however, we should provide a “what next” > >> >>> > >> >>> option. So > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> for example, people might be more willing to retire the project if > >> >>> > >> >>> they > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> knew for example we could move to github and still allow people to > >> >>>>>>> contribute and develop if they see fit. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> ~Michael > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On 8/30/16, 11:52 AM, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> After some thought I hate to agree, that at current levels of > >> >>>>>>> participation > >> >>>>>>> the only rational choice is to decide to retire as we are just > >> >>>>>>> wasting > >> >>>>>>> Apache Foundation resources without any real hope of > >> >>>>>>> graduating. > >> >>>>>>> Moreover, there were a few active projects based on Apache > >> >>>>>>> Wave > >> >>> > >> >>> that > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> felt > >> >>>>>>> little motivation to contribute back actively. I think this is > >> >>>>>>> because they > >> >>>>>>> found little need in Apache Foundation resources, while > >> >>> > >> >>> contributing > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> back > >> >>>>>>> required certain effort to comply with Apache rules. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I think we should hold a retirement vote and either recruit > >> >>>>>>> sufficient > >> >>>>>>> number of supporters willing and able actively participate > >> >>>>>>> immediately, or > >> >>>>>>> retire. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:13 PM Jonathan Leong < > >> >>> > >> >>> jon.le...@gmail.com > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > I would hate to see this project retire. > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > Adam you bring up good points. I can get the ball rolling > >> >>>>>>> with > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> the Docker > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > image. I'll see what I can get done over the next week or > >> >>>>>>> so. > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > -Jonathan Leong > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Adam John < > >> >>> > >> >>> a...@sterlingsolved.com> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > I have to weigh in and say that I agree that the bar here > >> >>> > >> >>> was > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> set high > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > from > >> >>>>>>> > > several perspectives. > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > I'm currently evaluating what components of this project > >> >>> > >> >>> can be > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> most > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > useful > >> >>>>>>> > > for incorporation into 2 separate projects. If either one > >> >>> > >> >>> moves > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> forward > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > in > >> >>>>>>> > > the next 6 months, there will be more developers actively > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> involved here. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > That said, I've watched some of the transition videos from > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Google folks > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > and > >> >>>>>>> > > read a lot of the docs, reviewed code and worked on > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> implementing this > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > project for myself. It is daunting and would benefit > >> >>> > >> >>> overall > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> from 2 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > significant - imho critical - updates; > >> >>>>>>> > > (1) the Product itself needs real changes - like the > >> >>> > >> >>> concept of > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> bots > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > needs > >> >>>>>>> > > pulled out from core terminology and revamped as a more > >> >>> > >> >>> current > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> common > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > concept / ie agents. There needs to be better > >> >>>>>>> organization > >> >>> > >> >>> of > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> the > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > Product > >> >>>>>>> > > from concept to contribution. This is not to diminish the > >> >>> > >> >>> vast > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> resources > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > present, only to highlight an improvement area. > >> >>>>>>> > > (2) the Architecture needs serious review and revision to > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> figure out how > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > best to leverage other projects and allow focus on the > >> >>> > >> >>> specific > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> benefits > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > this project enables. The technology stack overall needs > >> >>> > >> >>> better > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > separation > >> >>>>>>> > > at least from a newcomers perspective. > >> >>>>>>> > > As a third factor, and #1 on my list for adoption is > >> >>>>>>> rolling > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> docker > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > images > >> >>>>>>> > > for the project. This is essential in my humble opinion > >> >>>>>>> to > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> allow new > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > developers to focus on the pieces they feel most equipped > >> >>>>>>> to > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> contribute > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > comfortably... > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > I don't know how the major changes I am suggesting get > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> introduced and > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > discussed in much more detail. I'm hoping that perhaps I > >> >>> > >> >>> lieue > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> of a > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > potentially dismissive email "vote" ... Maybe a virtual > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> conference would > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > be > >> >>>>>>> > > of interest? I would hope that the participants of such a > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> convention > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > would > >> >>>>>>> > > be the core of a nascent rebirth. Yes I am volunteering > >> >>>>>>> to > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> help take > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > this > >> >>>>>>> > > on if there is interest... > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > Thanks, > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > Adam John > >> >>>>>>> > > (914) 623-8433 > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > On Aug 30, 2016 12:43 PM, "Zachary Yaro" > >> >>>>>>> <zmy...@gmail.com> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > I am in a similar boat. I have front-end development > >> >>> > >> >>> skills, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> but I > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > struggle to fully understand the back-end functionality or > >> >>> > >> >>> begin > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > separating > >> >>>>>>> > > the client from the server. > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > Zachary Yaro > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > On Aug 30, 2016 11:51 AM, "Thomas Wrobel" < > >> >>> > >> >>> darkfl...@gmail.com> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > I have tried on 3 separate occasions to understand the > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> server. Its > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > simply not in my skillset and I don't have the time to > >> >>> > >> >>> learn. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I don't > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > wish to sound arrogant there, theres learning needed for > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> anything of > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > course. But its too much investment - I want to apply > >> >>> > >> >>> skills > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> that I > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > already have. Last time I tried to get into wave > >> >>> > >> >>> development > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> (which > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > was I admit a few years back) it took me 3 days to even > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> compile the > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > server. Which is frustrating for someone that just wants > >> >>> > >> >>> to > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> work on a > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > client. > >> >>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > So I am certainly not waiting for permission, I am > >> >>>>>>> waiting > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> for a > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > prerequisite of a server/client split. I understand I > >> >>>>>>> can > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> neither > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > demand or expect such a thing. Developers on a project > >> >>> > >> >>> like > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> this just > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > have to jump in on what they feel like. Nothing can > >> >>> > >> >>> really be > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> expected > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > and I accept that. > >> >>>>>>> > > > I simply am informing there's "lesser" developers like > >> >>>>>>> me > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> that could > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > > work on bits if certain other things happen. > >> >>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > >> > --- > >> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > >> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > >> >
