[Opensync-devel] OpenSync: fragmentation is harmful

[Patrick O. <pat...@gm...>]

Hello OpenSync project!

As you know, I have been watching your project for a while, before and
in parallel to working on SyncEvolution. I've explained my motivation to
work on SyncEvolution already (different architecture, build something
in incremental steps, release usable code often), so I won't repeat that
here.

In this email I'd like to appeal to the OpenSync developers to
reconsider whether keeping OpenSync around really helps Linux and open
source syncing. My impression is that all efforts to put the project
back on track have failed. I also think that they'll continue to fail,
because the design is too complex. Michael has already published his
thoughts on that when he announced that he would step down as maintainer
of the SyncML plugin, and I have little to add to that.

In the meantime, new developers show up who want to help. Some of them,
like Emanoil, put in significant effort that doesn't benefit anyone
because the rest of the system still doesn't work.

There are precious few developers who still care about syncing; IMHO
spending their time on OpenSync weakens other projects who still have a
chance of solving the problem as a true open source project.

Of course I am thinking of SyncEvolution here. It already works very
well for SyncML. I also have support for additional protocols, which I
will be able to publish soon. I think it would be worthwhile successor
of OpenSync, but obviously I'll need help to cover all the use cases
that you were shooting for with OpenSync.

In case you wonder about Buteo: I have done an extensive analysis of it
and can assure you that it is not a replacement for the Synthesis engine
+ SyncEvolution, by design. For example, it does not include data
conversion support. The existing open source plugins are merely examples
that are meant to be modified by anyone who wants to support a specific
peer. Who is doing that work for the open source part is currently open
(see bugs.meego.com #5468). Direct synchronization with phones isn't even
meant to be a supported feature yet (not requested for meego.com).

So my proposal is this: 
      * officially declare OpenSync dead, to avoid distracting new
        developers and users 
      * point towards SyncEvolution as an alternative 
      * work with me on improving SyncEvolution so that it fits your
        needs; we could meet at FOSDEM this year to have a face-to-face
        meeting about next steps or meet online earlier

I considered writing this as an open letter, but rejected the idea
because I didn't want to make OpenSync look bad in public. Please let me
know what you think.

Disclaimer: I will not gain anything from expanding the scope of
SyncEvolution. Quite the opposite, I expect to have a lot more work at
my hands if you accept. So if you want to do me a favor, reject the
proposal ;-}

-- 
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
Pat...@gm...
http://www.estamos.de/