Follow-up Comment #16, sr #110548 (project administration): > Follow-up Comment #11, bug #60940 (project h-source): > > Hi Yuchen, > > [comment #10 comment #10:] >> I thought I could coordinate the work on h-client in this thread. As it > turned out I don't have time to review the code, nor the energy for drama. > > Thanks for the efforts, I think you are doing great! There seems to be some > point to clarify, if I may ask: > > Is there a consensus that the h-client source should be moved to the h-source > project (under a separate code tree than h-source itself); it seems the > request originated from you [0], and Bill had expressed their agreement with > the idea in [1]. > > [0] > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/h-source-users/2021-10/msg00015.html > [1] > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/h-source-users/2021-10/msg00024.html > > It seems it never materialized; so perhaps the current two-projects structure > was chosen (preserved) in the end?
These messages came from a savannah support ticket <https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110548> which was created by me, though [1] above did not appear in the ticket thread because the savannah ticket system is one way only (from web form to mailing list, not the other way around). There was no consensus. The Savannah admin wanted feedback from the h-client admins, but they didn't respond. So the issue got stale and nothing was changed. As I mentioned in the ticket, my goal was to *separate out* the h-client tree from the h-source tree. Whether it was moved into a separate repo under the h-source project or into the h-client project was not important. I chose the former because (IIRC) the h-client admins seemed unreachable, so if we were to leave the option of continuing working on the h-client code open, it would make more sense to do so under the h-source project, which I have been an admin. Now the situation is different: I am an admin of h-client as well, so it makes more sense to choose the second option, i.e. hosting the h-client code under the h-client project, as 1) it requires no administrative overhead (requesting and waiting for the savannah admin to create a new project), 2) it is cleaner and less confusing ("empty" h-client project and an h-source project that hosts both h-source code and h-client code), and 3) these are two separate projects, with different purposes. The h-client project does not require server administration / devops. The h-node site does not require the h-client to run. It is like having mastodon and mastodon clients like mastodon.el or toot in different repos. Decoupling generally saves time and energy. Regarding h-source, I also don't think it makes a lot of sense to bikeshed on which forge to use and where to write responses to bugs etc., as long as the current choice is not the bottleneck. At this stage the bottleneck for the server development is the code quality / readability. We need (more) tests for h-source, so that we can refactor the legacy code and make more interesting changes. I am also not convinced the current number of active devs (basically 1) and time resources warrant long debates on that front. I hope this answers your questions - let me know if you have more. > > Thanks, > > Maxim _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110548> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/
