For those calling for a new place to both a) dogfood the product b) discuss the next development stage at the same time!
Register an account on https://wave-dev.alown.co.uk, and join the discussions. (Shameless plug) Ali On 28 November 2013 15:32, 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 >>
