[H-client-devel] [sr #110548] create an h-client git repository under the h-source project

[Yuchen Pei]

Follow-up Comment #16, sr #110548 (project administration):

> Follow-up Comment #11, bug #60940 (project h-source):
>
> Hi Yuchen,
>
> [comment #10 comment #10:]
>> I thought I could coordinate the work on h-client in this thread.  As it
> turned out I don't have time to review the code, nor the energy for drama.
>
> Thanks for the efforts, I think you are doing great!  There seems to be
some
> point to clarify, if I may ask:
>
> Is there a consensus that the h-client source should be moved to the
h-source
> project (under a separate code tree than h-source itself); it seems the
> request originated from you [0], and Bill had expressed their agreement
with
> the idea in [1].
>
> [0] 
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/h-source-users/2021-10/msg00015.html
> [1] 
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/h-source-users/2021-10/msg00024.html
>
> It seems it never materialized; so perhaps the current two-projects
structure
> was chosen (preserved) in the end?

These messages came from a savannah support ticket
<https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110548> which was created by me, though
[1] above did not appear in the ticket thread because the savannah ticket
system is one way only (from web form to mailing list, not the other way
around).

There was no consensus.  The Savannah admin wanted feedback from the h-client
admins, but they didn't respond.  So the issue got stale and nothing was
changed.

As I mentioned in the ticket, my goal was to *separate out* the h-client tree
from the h-source tree.  Whether it was moved into a separate repo under the
h-source project or into the h-client project was not important.  I chose the
former because (IIRC) the h-client admins seemed unreachable, so if we were to
leave the option of continuing working on the h-client code open, it would
make more sense to do so under the h-source project, which I have been an
admin.

Now the situation is different: I am an admin of h-client as well, so it makes
more sense to choose the second option, i.e. hosting the h-client code under
the h-client project, as 1) it requires no administrative overhead (requesting
and waiting for the savannah admin to create a new project), 2) it is cleaner
and less confusing ("empty" h-client project and an h-source project that
hosts both h-source code and h-client code), and 3) these are two separate
projects, with different purposes.  The h-client project does not require
server administration / devops.  The h-node site does not require the h-client
to run.  It is like having mastodon and mastodon clients like mastodon.el or
toot in different repos.  Decoupling generally saves time and energy.

Regarding h-source, I also don't think it makes a lot of sense to bikeshed on
which forge to use and where to write responses to bugs etc., as long as the
current choice is not the bottleneck.  At this stage the bottleneck for the
server development is the code quality / readability.  We need (more) tests
for h-source, so that we can refactor the legacy code and make more
interesting changes.  I am also not convinced the current number of active
devs (basically 1) and time resources warrant long debates on that front.

I hope this answers your questions - let me know if you have more.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Maxim



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110548>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/