From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: The parallel projects (was Re: Apache 2.4 and php 5.6 test branch) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:28:51 +0000 Message-ID: <07283ef47baf7a305bf94578e00ae85e@mail01.ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8793614165749299564==" List-Id: --===============8793614165749299564== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, thanks for the responses so far. On 19/01/2016 08:41 AM, Dirk Reitz wrote: > Dear Michael and all other developers, > > I am sorry to realize at least some frustration out of your post. I am indeed a little bit frustrated, but this is not what this emails are about. I will get over it. > This has never been our intention and still is not. Although we got > some hints/informations regarding the developer mailing list, we > thought it would be enough to show our projects and progress in the > developer part of the forum - obviously wrong, our fault ! It also not about finding out who's fault something is. This is about making IPFire better. And when people are working on making things better that should be integrated into the distribution. > Our intention was to expand the functionality of ipfire as a central > part of the network - therefore we started the development of our > projects. In addition we wanted to help future development of ipfire - > we hoped that some of our work could be reused, but we never expected > anything from you Michael or other developers. Well, for this being used it has to be submitted as patches. In small and reviewable and testable chunks. > As Marcel is not so familiar writing in english, I offered to do this > instead (for the mail proxy/mail server). > > I agree that our projects have diverted a lot from ipfire, but I am > confident we are able to sort it out. How? > Please let me know, what I can/should do Keep this conversation running is the only thing I am asking for. We will figure out the rest from here... > > best regards > Dirk -Michael > >> Am 19.01.2016 um 02:16 schrieb Michael Tremer >> : >> >> Hello, >> >> I am actually at a point now where I think we need to talk about >> this. >> A lot. >> >> So many people have been starting to contribute to this project - or >> as >> I sometimes see it - to parallel projects. Projects that are >> developed >> in parallel to the main distribution. Projects that have different >> goals or are at least from my perspective heading into a different >> direction. >> >> The mail proxy/mail server/web mail project is one like these. There >> are also others like multiple versions of the update accelerator and >> some more. >> >> These changes are never submitted on here. There is not even a >> conversation on here about that being a goal. Despite me having >> multiple chats with people about how this process works and that >> they >> want to do it, soon-ish. >> >> So here we are. Months later. With no progress at all. >> >> Instead I am getting requests and bug reports for that software that >> I >> am not involved with at all. People tell me that bugs are fixed >> there >> or that there are features available they want to use. They ask when >> this will be available in the distribution. >> >> I don't have an answer to that. And what is even worse is that right >> now I am too tired to look into this. >> >> These projects have diverted a lot in that sense that an easy merge >> is >> no longer possible. It will take a lot of work to split up the >> changes, >> test them, confirm that they work, do QA and then release them. This >> process itself is not foolproof and we are not getting a lot of >> feedback. We just get the backlash when something is not working >> properly. It will be very tough. >> >> Working on these changes step by step would have certainly avoided >> getting to this state. Now we are at it. Frankly, I do not know what >> to >> do. >> >> I will certainly not sit down and take these things apart myself. I >> have actually not much interest in working on these things any way. >> Cleaning up after somebody else won't be my main job for the next >> few >> weeks. That is partly because I don't want to and partly because >> that >> won't work any way. It is not my code. >> >> The other option would be just to leave these projects as they are. >> That may either be getting old and rot in a git tree. That may >> either >> be them becoming something else. But I do not think that any of >> these >> is the best option for the IPFire project as a whole. I am very much >> interested in keeping that as the main target of my work. >> >> And that might me or other IPFire developers to do the same work >> again. >> In this specific example update apache. From my point of view that >> only >> wasted valuable developer time. In both projects. That can't be the >> ideal. >> >> So I would like to hear that from the people who are working on >> these >> parallel projects what they are intending to do and what they are >> expecting from me/the other developers. I honestly do not know if >> you >> think yourself that this is an issue, too. So let's have a >> productive >> discussion about that. I am expecting some answers... >> >> Best, >> -Michael >> >> On Wed, 2016-01-13 at 15:51 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote: >> Hi Marcel >> >> And a happy new year. ;-) >> >> I'm a bit sad about that I didn't get an answer from you. >> A few minutes ago I've taken a look to your git and notices that you >> have removed the new-apache-php branch. >> >> I know it would be bit work to do to separate every part of your >> existing work into their own branches but I really tried to explain >> you the requirement. >> >> Finally I hope that you are still interested to share your work with >> the project? >> >> yours >> Daniel >> >> Am 21.12.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Daniel Weismüller: >> Hi Marcel >> >> Sorry for the late answer. >> >> I've taken a look on your new branch. >> >> I'm really saddened to have to say that we still can't use it. >> >> We can't use update packs like you build them. We need every single >> thing in his own branch. >> I know it is much more effort but at least it is much better >> because they won't collide with other updates. >> Another advantage is that each part is individually maintainable. >> >> So it would be really great if you could split your work into cutie >> little pieces. :-) >> >> Thanks a lot. >> >> - Daniel >> >> Am 04.12.2015 um 19:22 schrieb Marcel Lorenz: >> Hi Daniel >> >> I have created a test branch new-apache-php. >> With berekeley 6.1.26 and ICU 56.1 for apache. >> mcrypt is a prerequisite for php. >> >> Apache ./configure log : >> >> checking db6/db.h usability... yes >> checking db6/db.h presence... yes >> checking for db6/db.h... yes >> checking for -ldb-6.1... yes >> checking for Berkeley DB... found db6 >> checking for default DBM... sdbm (default) >> setting LDADD_dbm_db to "-ldb-6.1" >> >> Commit text: >> Update to new Apache 2.4 and PHP 5.6 >> >> Apache 2.4.17 >> PHP 5.6.16 >> mcrypt 2.6.8 (new) >> >> Comments: >> Apache works in event mode and uses Berkeley DB6 >> PHP is multithreaded >> >> Apache config folder is changed from /etc/httpd/conf/ to >> /etc/httpd/ >> Apache 2.4.x need this change. The sysconfdir layout entry has no >> effekt more. >> All relevant lfs and rootfiles are updated (owncloud, >> naigos(sql), phpSANE, icniga, cacti) >> >> http://git.ipfire.org/?p=people/mlorenz/ipfire-2.x.git;a=shortlog >> ;h=refs/heads/new-apache-php >> >> I have testet the iso from this branch. Owncloud, cacti , >> icniga, naigos has yet to be tested.. >> >> Marcel --===============8793614165749299564==--