Martin Schanzenbach <[email protected]> writes: > tl;dr: > - Should we move towards a monolithic gnunet.git repo which includes > gtk/secushare again? > - Should we instead move optional components (conversation, reclaim, > messenger) out of gnunet.git as extensions?
Hello, I want to express my opinion on the matter, if it might interest you: personally, I'd first make a distinction between high-level and low-level services (or client/service couples), then decide which belongs to core and which can be considered "external" applications. Of course, low-level stuff is something that GNUnet can't live without and thus must live in the same repo. secushare, conversation, reclaim and messenger look very high-level to me, and the first three in particular are essentially complete applications building on top of GNUnet, so I believe it's ok to keep them separated and have people install/build them only if they need it, something that can't really happen (from my experience, that is) with pre-compiled packages that usually try to fit as many features as possible to cover everything. I kept messenger out because even though it's designed for chats, taking a glance at the API I think it could be used for other applications too with some fiddling here and there, but I haven't actually used it so I don't really know. Anyway, the point is that unlike, say, conversation, it /could/ be considered a "core" protocol. On the other hand, gnunet-gtk looks more like a tool akin to gnunet-cadet or gnunet-gns, so I think it should be moved in the core repository. That way, packagers can distribute it and users can use it out-of-the-box, which I think it's great for overall usability. My two cents. A.V.
