On 18 January 2012 10:37, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Suhothayan Sriskandarajah > <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 The second approach seems interesting. > > > > But at the same time I also need to mention why there were very lack of > > involvement in last mouths. > > I think having a good understanding on the past failures will help us > with > > a better start. > > > > I think the main issue was having both the Rest Branch and Trunk, and > > people working on both. > > Though the REST was introduced to replace the trunk it still didn't come > up > > to that level, > > and further there was very little support from the senior developers in > > designing how things should be going forward. > > > > The PhotArk trunk has become a "legacy application"... and if you have > worked with legacy applications you know what I mean. Hard to > maintain, tightly coupled, etc... The REST branch was nothing more > then a initiative to bring the same functionality that is in trunk, in > a more flexible way, considering different software layers, etc... > There was never a barrier to anyone that tried to collaborate on this > effort, even some GSoC students started, others completed, their work > in the REST branch. If any community member have better strategy on > how we can make the trunk code more flexible, and easy to maintain, > please speak up and let's discuss the different approaches. > > I totally agree on your point. Yes trunk has become a legacy application, the main issue I was mentioning is that we tried to maintain both the REST and the Trunk. That why all went out of control and messy. > > I appreciate this new change but also request the key developers who know > > the domain to take some active part at the early stage of the project, > > to bring the project to a some what a working level before letting the > > project to finds its own way. > > > > > There is no mandatory requirement for us to go into this direction, > what we have is a absolute requirement to be an active community... if > we can become active without changing directions, fine... if we feel > that changing directions will make us attract more contributors and be > a more healthier community, and if everybody agrees on the issue, > good... if we still the way we are, PhotArk will soon be a retired > podling. > I too feel this change is necessary at this point and in current path PhotArk will be a dead project soon. My suggestion is to take this change and discontinue the development of the previous implementation. I think this will help to keep the project focus on a unified direction, attracting more developers and resulting in a better product. Regards Suho > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >
