And I helped! ... cue shake n bake commercial
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:02, Chas Emerick <c...@cemerick.com> wrote:
>
> To be clear ("well ACTUALLY" :-P), development hasn't ceased, just
> slowed to a trickle. (There are commits this year, so there?) Part of
> that is nREPL being intentionally a slow-moving bit of bedrock for other
> people to build on. That's not to discount my original stipulations (1)
> and (2) ofc.
>
> Forking is obviously easiest. Like I said, anyone can do that anytime.
>
> The benefit to rebooting is to shake off whatever responsibilities or
> constraints are associated with the (eventually prior) copyright
> assignment. What happens to a codebase that is subject to a CA that is
> forked elsewhere? Are future contributions subject to that CA? I assume
> not, but IANAL. Does the "Copyright (c) Rich Hickey" banner that's
> supposed to be on all files stay there permanently? Pretty sure, but
> IANAL. If all of the nontrivial contributors to the project decide they
> want to change the license later, do we also need to obtain Rich's
> assent? I have no idea. Do I want to maintain explanations of the right
> answers to these kinds of questions for a (fork of a) project that's no
> longer within contrib? Most definitely not.
>
> (Parenthetically, it strikes me as very strange for a project to have a
> copyright assignment to an individual that hasn't lodged any commits, at
> least insofar as the project gone "solo". It's interesting that I don't
> have that intuition if the assignee is an org like Apache or whatever, a
> discrepancy that I'll have to think on.)
>
> That was a good question! Answering helped clarify things for me:
> specifically, if I'm going to maintain the project outside of contrib, I
> will reboot it as previously described.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Chas
>
> On 7/18/2017 13:19, Dan Larkin wrote:
>> Hi Chas!
>>
>> This is great news, I'm glad to hear development will resume. What's the
>> downside to just forking? aka why bother rebooting from scratch?
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 05:48, Chas Emerick <c...@cemerick.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've been approached many, many times over the years (and more frequently
>>> since the development and inclusion of socket-repl) about the potential of
>>> moving nREPL[1] out of clojure contrib…either back to its original
>>> location[2], or under one of the various Clojure community organizations.
>>> I've generally demurred or ghosted on these suggestions, sometimes out of a
>>> lack of time/attention, and often out of just not wanting to stir the pot.
>>> The pace of them has quickened somewhat lately though, and I'd like to put
>>> the whole topic to bed and hopefully get the project to a better footing in
>>> the process.
>>>
>>> First, to stipulate a few things:
>>> • nREPL is an essential bit of infrastructure in Clojure tooling
>>> • On balance, I have neglected the project in recent years, to the
>>> detriment of all of the users of the aforementioned tooling.
>>> • On balance, contributors and potential contributors have been less
>>> involved (or turned away entirely) because of the well-known friction that
>>> comes with the contrib process and requirements. (tbh, this is a factor in
>>> #2, though not the majority)
>>> • No one (least of all me) would object to nREPL having its
>>> contribution process managed through github or gitlab.
>>> So basically everyone wants nREPL to be a "regular" project, and subject to
>>> and beneficiary of the same expectations as 99.9% of all of the other OSS
>>> projects we all interact with daily. How does that happen?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The only routes AFAICT are:
>>>
>>> • to fork back elsewhere, which would require keeping the EPL license
>>> and copyright assignment of the current codebase. Literally anyone can do
>>> this at any time, without any coordination with anyone else.
>>> • for me to reboot the project. This would not be difficult given I
>>> "own" the vast majority of the project's commits. This would allow for the
>>> elimination of the copyright assignment, and potentially a different
>>> license (I'm partial to MPLv2, but we'll see). If this route is taken, we
>>> could set up a project issue where the other contributors of nontrivial
>>> patches could agree (or not) to the reconstitution of their code w/o the
>>> copyright assignment, etc.
>>> In either case, this "new" nREPL project's artifacts would end up being
>>> distributed under a different maven groupId (`com.cemerick`, if I'm to
>>> continue deploying, etc). The clojure-contrib nREPL project remain, and any
>>> releases that are done from it after the fork/reboot would continue to be
>>> under the `org.clojure` coordinates. Downstream projects need to choose
>>> whether or not to change dependencies; I'd expect the vast majority of
>>> future motion to gravitate to the reboot, but that's just speculation at
>>> this point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to hear here (no more private mails, please! :-) from any
>>> nREPL users, contributors, etc. As much as possible, I would like not to
>>> debate/re-litigate the merits of contrib and its process here; let's focus
>>> on what steps will yield the best outcome for nREPL and its stakeholders.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Chas
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/clojure/tools.nrepl/
>>> [2] https://github.com/cemerick/nrepl
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
>>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>>> your first post.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Clojure" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
> first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
