Re: [hylafax-users] new community site

[Charles Duffy <cduffy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matt Fretwell wrote:
>  One cannot cover all those aspects in one single distribution/code
> base, which is why I personally believe that Lee has made a good decision
> by freeing up another possible avenue for HylaFAX.

I agree that there is value to having ultra-stable branches intended for 
heavy-duty commercial use and separate, reasonably-stable branches with 
lots of nifty features intended for general use in scenarios where 
stability is less critical.

I can agree that letting Lee be the sole arbiter of release timing on 
the reasonably-stable branches might be a reasonable course of action, 
so long as the difference between the ultra-stable and reasonably-stable 
branches is obvious to end users who are deciding what to download and 
install.


On the other hand...


If Lee's releases were clearly and obviously documented as being the 
results of a different process, and not the output from the HylaFAX 
community process, that would be a Good Thing. Part of why some people 
like HylaFAX is its reputation for having ultra-stable releases; making 
it clear that releases which haven't gone through the process that makes 
them ultra-stable have indeed not gone through that process would 
resolve some of Darren's legitimate concerns.

Having two bug trackers if there's not an actual fork going on is 
obviously broken.

Finally -- when a democratic process can be avoided for the reason that 
going through said process would involve too much arguing with vehement 
dissenters... well, the process is arguably not democratic any more. I'm 
not saying that having a democratic process is the end-all-be-all for 
OSS projects -- the benevolent dictator works too *when all key parties 
respect the dictator in question*. That said, iFax is arguably a key 
party here, and the interests they represent are quite certainly not 
just their own, but also those of commercial users in general -- who are 
likely to be a pretty good chunk of the userbase in general, if not a 
substantial majority.

Being one of those commercial users, I quite like letting iFax have a 
say on official stable releases -- even if it slows down getting new and 
nifty functionality, stability is important. Putting on my hobbyist hat, 
though, having a separate, quickly-progressing branch is a Good Thing 
too; hopefully something can be worked out that makes both sides happy.


Finally -- in an ideal world, folks would be able to download the 
ultra-stable releases and the reasonably-stable releases from the same 
place; the folks who act as guardians for the ultra-stable release 
process would approve of the reasonably-stable release process (inasmuch 
as understanding that it doesn't get in the way or confuse users wrt the 
separate availability of ultra-stable releases), and the folks 
responsible for the reasonably-stable releases would respect the process 
responsible for the ultra-stable releases. Just going off and 
instituting a new process without proposing it first (and at minimum 
making concessions to ie. make it easy for users to distinguish between 
the branches) is not a good way to work towards mutual respect, even if 
defense of the proposal would have been a massive PITA.


Okay, enough soapboxing from me -- I have work to get done, and to the 
extent that my opinions are worth something here they've already been 
offered -- but being that all parties are coming in with good 
intentions, can't 'yall just get along? :)


____________________ HylaFAX(tm) Users Mailing List _______________________
 To subscribe/unsubscribe, click http://lists.hylafax.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
On UNIX: mail -s unsubscribe hylafax-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx < /dev/null
 *To learn about commercial HylaFAX(tm) support, mail sales@xxxxxxxxx*