On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Tim Graham <timogra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not convinced either way about whether putting this in core will help > mature it and fix bugs more quickly or not. I don't have any sense of how > the code might change after we merge it, but things get more complicated if > we start selectively backporting somes fixes for Django's monthly bug fix > releases. If channels continues to live externally, I assume there won't be > the complication of a master vs. stable branch and that releases could > happen more often. If this feature is exciting enough, whether or not its > in Django itself shouldn't make too much of a difference, should it? Also, > if we do include this in 1.10 and then start paying people using the > Mozilla money, that might result in master changing even more aggressively > compared to the stable branch at which point having a 1.10 release that's X > months old in terms of the latest features might not be all that valuable. > A lot of the future work is not on the core code itself but additional code around it; this was the whole point of getting a core amount of it into 1.10, so that there was something consistent to build around. > > Tell me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that you are somewhat burned out > maintaining this project on your own and you feel that merging this to > Django will help offload your burden and attract other contributors. If > that's the case, there's a possible solution in using some of the Mozilla > money to try to get help in more of the code review/maintenance tasks. If > we have an accepted DEP and plans to merge it to core in 1.11, I would try > to get more involved with those projects too. > I'm not burned out maintaining it - I'm burned out trying to argue about getting it into core, so I'm inclined to stop arguing for that reason alone, and instead revert to the tactic I know best of running huge features out of a slightly-monkeypatchy external package :) My concern around using the Mozilla money to refine it was that it was applied for under the pretense this would be core Django, though if that's still our intention and we keep it external for now I don't see too much of a problem arising there. > > I don't see a problem in continuing to refine this externally even if that > means it lands in an LTS. I sure would feel less overwhelmed if I didn't > have to review the big patch up against the alpha deadline and/or if this > threatens to delay the 1.10 release. > > I understand, and I'm sorry for not getting this done in a more timely fashion; I should have had the patch ready earlier than it was, but didn't get round to it for a while, and (mistakenly) thought a few weeks would be enough. If we do keep it external, I would suggest that we still move to adopt it as an official Django project, moving ownership of the git repos and mentioning it in official documentation; this to me seems like a less severe thing than merging it into core, and also something that there is not a deadline preventing so we can discuss it further if needs be. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1up7ECX1OyOQHgo9cKb7F2fvvh-Ekzp1WQtmz2NqTp88JA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
