I don't know what my current state at the project is, but if you want to
call me a developer, you should better call me an inactive developer.
I'm following the discussion since december without writing something,
because I mislike the style it has been done.
Back to the topic:
Am Montag, den 11.02.2008, 20:50 +0100 schrieb Carsten Wolff:
> This leads me to the conclusion, the only question regarding the current
> situation in eGW is this: Will benefits come for both sides from developing
> Tine within egroupware.org, or not?
> [My personal answer: Absolutely.
> Compatibility between the two is an important
> advantage for both and will not happen, if the devs don't use the same tools
> and communication channels. Also, nobody who ever debugged eGW can deny that
> it's suffering from its' legacy. So in the best case, if Tine really manages
> to be a completely compatible rewrite of eGW written with clean coding
> concepts, it would be like a lottery win.
> And in the worst case, if Tine will
> be a failure, eGW lost manpower for half a year or so.]
Nothing will be lost. Even if Tine will fail it's a win of knowledge,
that their approach wasn't the right one. The only loss of manpower
would be to drop Lars, Conny and others that may follow from eGroupWare.
Drop Lars and Conny an they will work on their own project Tine. There
will be no profit for eGroupWare. No feedback to the project and if they
fail, they even won't come back.
Let them work on Tine as branch of eGroupware. There will be feedback on
how things can made better. Some improvements may even ported back to
the current codebase (have a look at Lars current LDAP improvments). If
they fail, they may be motivated to start over with current codebase.
If they don't fail, users will decide if they like to use Tine. They
will do so, no matter if it is named Tine or eGroupWare 2.0.
Same for developers. If they prefer to work on the new code, it doesn't
matter if it is named Tine or eGroupWare 2.0.
I even see no problem in having two stable releases of eGroupWare. One
named eGroupWare 2.0 and one may be eGroupWare 1.10. Both can be
maintained (there is no difference to maintain eGroupWare 2.0 or Tine
1.0). There may also come a solution for a long term upgrade path. No
need for customers to switch from one to another release within one
I suggest to agree on Connys proposal.
To repeat it in total:
> In our view the current state is the following:
> - The majority of egw devs and users don't want to continue this ugly
> flame war.
I'm sure this is true.
> - On the other hand, also nobody wants to have the votes conny proposed.
For my point of view, there is no need to vote at the moment.
> - No one wants to drop (not even lars or conny) egw 1.x
For me, this is absolutely true!
> - Also a big majority don't want to drop Tine 2.0 out of the
> egroupware.org project.
Even if Lutz feels different, I also see this majority.
> So here is, what we propose:
> - Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the
> egroupware.org project.
As it is allready.
> - Both activities share the same goal, to provide great collaboration
> software based on free and open sources.
Also no need to discuss that in my point of view.
> - If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards and
> implement them in a compatible way
What are "common technical standards" here?
Do you mean things like design patterns, integration of same frameworks,
> - Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
Let the users decide what they want to use.
> - eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where
> proven successfully there.
There is no need to port back technologies brute force. But where it
makes sense, it would be stupid not to profit in 1.x from the modern
concepts that will be used with tine.
> - Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
> standards, and quality agreements.
That's ok for me, as tine starts from scratch. Tine is the right place
to try absolutely new things.
> - On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by
> aggregating the news feed of the other page.
If you really need two websites, Tine website should show _really_
clear, that it is a proof of concept development branch of eGroupWare,
so that users will be directet to the eGroupWare site.
> We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we
> continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind
> and friendly manner.
Please cool down and give it a try.
I would add another decision for about the same half year.
Add Nigel as a project member as suggested by Ralf. There is no impact
if Nigel will submit code to the current codebase while Lars is mainly
working on the Tine branch. They don't have to love each other to work
on the same goal mentioned by conny some lines above.
If you don't agree on submitted code, discuss the code (and only the
code) on dev-list.