Hi Ali Please invite me to the discussion wave. My wave id is fr...@wave-dev.alown.co.uk
Regards, Frank On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > 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 > >> >
