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)?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
