[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 19:26:10 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0

On 2/11/19 6:47 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> Am I missing an argument here?

Let me answer my own question (cooking is great...).

Actually, one good way I could see separating things is by
responsibility boundary. I don't actually want to be responsible for
SecuShare or Re:claim passing tests for a release. It's an annoying
distraction. OTOH, at least for Re:claim, we do have a capable person
who (I presume) wants to manage the release cycle. This is not so much
about self-aggrandizing than simply someone taking charge. I don't see
this for FS or conversation, so here it would simply be more work (hence
I'm fighting this). But with Re:claim, it would decentralize things,
make me have _less_ work. So while I think for users it would be better
to keep Re:claim in, I think for development it might actually be
beneficial at least for _me_ (and maybe Martin).

So this suggests a simpler "rule": *if* we have a capable person who
*wants* to manage a separate Git and manage releases (for a reasonable
time period, say at least the next 3 years), *then* spitting off the
component (if reasonably self-contained, yada yada) is an option.

Similarly, I am actually thinking of (re)moving SecuShare from the main
framework, mostly because it is not yet ready for 0.11.0.  And if the
SecuShare people would pick that up, that would be great.

So what do you think about this idea of orienting it a bit more along
_responsibility_ (for release) boundaries (while of course preserving
coherent technical units)?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]