[Vm-dev] I'll come in again...

[Casimiro de Almeida Barreto]

Em 27-06-2010 16:02, Andreas Raab escreveu:
>
> Folks -
>
> I feel like I've been thoroughly misunderstood in the recent
> discussion about using a distributed version control system. Let me
> try to make my point as clearly as possible:
>
> First of all I don't *care* whether to use a "distributed" VCS or not.
> Is that clear? I really don't. What I care about for a version control
> system is how easy it is to use and how well it integrates with the
> system I use.
>
> Having been clear on the initial point, my concern in this discussion
> is about *why* people seem to be excited about using an DVCS. What I'm
> hearing is "great, now we can fork" instead of "great, this will make
> it easier to contribute".
>
> There is a difference between a "branch" and a "fork". A "branch" is
> something where you (usually temporarily) diverge from the main line
> in order to make the original product better. A "fork" is a (usually
> permanent) divergence from the main line WITHOUT the intention to make
> the original product better. For example, Cog is a branch, Pharo is a
> fork.
>
> Branches are *great*. Branches allow us to explore directions without
> destabilizing the main development. Forks are *terrible*. Forks split
> communities, force duplication of efforts, and split mindshare that
> would better be spent on making the system better for everyone.
Forks are not always terrible. Sometimes they're just necessary. What's
terrible is when forked communities keep frictioning. I put things like
a divorce: when it happens friendly it's ok but litigious is usually nasty.

In the case of smalltalk and more particularly of squeak I am sorry and
bitter about the forks because community is just too small to allow a
friendly divorce. What is meant here?

First: there's just not enough people to ensure each fork will go ahead.
Most work is done in personal basis, without any kind of corporate
support (even academic) and results are not flourishing in terms of
commercial products, PhDs or even relevant papers. Fact is that even in
squeak.org we can't find a relevant list of recent papers. Much is
implementation of infrastructure that may turn out to have commercial
value (like seaside) but where are (really significant) commercial
results? Why seaside (for instance) didn't catch up like, let's say,
zope & people are still usually unaware even about its existence? IMOH
one of reasons is that efforts are very fractionated and potential
investors are averse of the kind of dispute that arouse inside community.

Second: the forks didn't happen due to extreme different visions related
to architecture or other key technical issues... in fact, most of
discrepancy originated in fields that could not be further from
scientific or technical development. Thus, science and technology didn't
profit from the split and key pending issues (like concurrency, etc)
stay open.

Third: as result of (1) and (2) above, it's not easy to get bucks ($$$)
for research & development either for squeak or any of the forks. Ok...
perhaps one or other of the parts receive some funding for some period
of time but if no papers/PhD/products or media coverage show up money
will just go away and what will stay is a bad name...

IMHO, all "forks" should be branches. It would allow people to keep
cooperating in a friendly way. It would allow people to concentrate in
experiments, science and industry and let "administrative tasks" for a
small committee instead of having "administrative committees" managing
tiny split communities. In Portuguese we say: too many chiefs for so few
Indians ("muitos caciques para poucos índios").
>
> As a consequence, when I hear people being excited about the ability
> to "fork" I am starting to ask myself what we can do to avoid the need
> for forks. Forks don't just happen - there are events that lead up to
> it and I am trying to understand if there's something we can do to
> alleviate the perceived need for forking.
>
> I'm not trying to tell you that you *must* host your private
> experiments on Squeak.org - I am asking to find out what kind of
> frustration exist in our current development process, and what we can
> do to address them.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
Best regards,

CdAB

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20100627/94d2e5b4/signature.pgp