-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/25/2010 06:38 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > +cc Evan > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Stéphane Laborde > <[email protected]> wrote: >> What about starting with a Status.net fork ? > > Maybe this is just a terminology issue, but there shouldn't be too > much need to fork the core codebase; they have put a lot of work into > modularity, APIs etc eg http://status.net/wiki/API ... and also > plugins and themes - http://status.net/wiki/HOWTO_Make_a_Plugin > http://status.net/wiki/HOWTO_Make_a_Theme ... > > If GNU Social wants to do something not supported by any of that, I'd > suggest having a chat with Evan. Maybe the projects are too different > in goals to directly use StatusNet but perhaps there are common > sub-components / libraries that can at least be shared. > > cheers, > > Dan > >
We don't want this to become "StatusNet with modifications" - we want it to have its own, unique codebase - not just a distributed SatusNet implementation. Admittedly, we do need to be focusing more on the way the different GNU Social users communicate with one another than on the basic software that allows users to post content. Re-using StatusNet code might seem like a good time saver, but I would argue that it would actually make for more work on our part. If we use the SatusNet code, we'll either have to fit our code around StatusNet, which will take some extra time, and may or may not produce the GNU Social we hope to create, or we'll have to modify the StatusNet code to work with our vision of GNU Social, which would: a) Take longer. and b) Potentially cause technical problems down the road, especially as we improve GNU Social's feature list. I'm not saying that we write GNU Social "from scratch"; there are a number of libraries that we can make use of to speed up the development process and (hopefully) reduce the number of bugs in our code. I am saying, however, that we would be better off writing our own, basic StatusNet-style microblogging implementation that suits our needs. It wouldn't have to be anything fancy, for the time being - it would just have to be a way for testers to interface with the (arguably more import, for now) underlying GNU Social protocol and backbone software. - -- Henry L. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJL1FRmAAoJEIRrI0p6YC9XXWoP/0W75IpqI3ybXjrAVGYT0DPg ORUlequOXMCZj8HQylkLuNmDDRHQtoyfsV0jfymzhXWU6QPv1l6sJgxz5fJ4aScs CtAYnhn4InQW0HH+VEm/FtnlPVyIMn3odEKpJwL/pS8jG/mc0uKpmzMEPHUK8BHH RTx6dPLobwxW8IRJJ3g9WPbrVXrHnQjdVSVra+TCpVKmn50jjvdfbwleQWTzVdNZ hjmQzHKK8nGgj7475Bd6Y/1VvaM6TctoMcnwVEKbrDbO1nTynuZQCHwRn34ytVej McIQvkxjaRSV92LC8K6BYcMQwkTmD00XETzs67ojAonUfQBB1f3k8Ye/NipFQwBT ehix3ZIwrnFjKsdFZqSOQUc95cWJNfsVNaADSTWjEVNa1fi/jIC1rAX94BwGCprS twQZ8fjQRmkOStXoewvNEafYJz3nCkNrM3EReL8NhpwC4nnA6s0VSwM5ke0njCiP o/ft9CEmLW+THbRnssgI5rGw9w2BeHLv5wvwgoCRns9nFpRHn6rkLh5xBjwNM28V muOBXRwHhpCpkhsU4g0t5/sLiJxx/LeVnkBCe5YB+Xi0j8glqkdGuahV8KB97Vs+ iMvJ0CxmeMJXerYwbMQGYmnypy/cJVW+YITn31oGkRpzkyq8Ur6c5dWHszdGUuJV /TNLKR/Js+6T3uA+lwDr =j0WD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
