The way open source communities such as this one work, the road map needs to be defined by the people doing the work. It would be easy for some of us to come up with a cool roadmap, but if coders aren't behind it, it will be pointless effort.
If folks are interested in coding Wave, whether at Apache or elsewhere, I'd encourage them to jump in and start suggesting where they think it should go. Upayavira On Fri, Nov 29, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > Wave really lacks a roadmap? > Surely that's something that could be hammered out, at least in rough, in > this mailing list? > > Seems to be some agreement on the need to separate client/server. And I > guess with that comes the need for a documented protocol between the two. > Is there other prerequests for these? (Not necessarily saying this is the > #1 thing, merely something to get the ball rolling on the next few steps > to > take) > > > > ~~~ > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > > > On 29 November 2013 05:27, Jeff <j...@kropek.org> wrote: > > > Hi Im on vacation & am writing from my phone... I really just wanted to > > add that I have been lurking on the mailing list to try & get a feel for > > the project. I am Looking forward to working on it irrespective of org > > form. Jeff > > > > Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> 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. > > > > > >>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). > > >(With retirement: what happens to the project's source code license? > > >Does it become public domain instead of licensed to the ASF?) > > > > > > > > >@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 > > > > -- > > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
