Re: [admin] mailing lists for mod_lisp, cl-pdf and cl-typesetting
Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
CL-PDF is under BSD-style license, and mod_lisp under Apache License, right?
No mod_lisp is also under a BSD style licence
For them at least, I definitely approve.
I'm under the impression that you're not distributing the source to cl-typesetting yet: this makes hosting a mailing list for it at Common-lisp.net slightly controversial. However, since I think there is a clear intent to release it, I approve.
Hum... If you are Open Source only for mailing lists you should say so.
By the by, are you *sure* you want just mailing lists, and not full project hosting?
For now yes, I prefer to play with my own servers with my own tools. But I could at least add a project page if you want.
The point made by some folks on cll is quite true: giving people early access to source is much likelier to bring contributors -- especially giving them CVS/SVN/Arch access as opposed to just tarballs.
I've seen this but it's what I have done with mod_lisp and cl-pdf and the users/contributors ratio is a fairly good approximation of 0. :( Releasing software takes time, you get lots of emails asking for support, etc... And time is the resource I'm missing the most! So I prefer to work on cl-typesetting to release it only when it's usable by an average user. So it's not that I'm against releasing it it's just that I don't think the advantages would be so great. BTW I'm ok to discuss this on a suitable place if c.l.l is not the good one. (or by email) Cheers, Marc BTW my reply to Nikodemus bounced: A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: nikodemus at random-state.net SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<nikodemus at random-state.net>: host eforward2.name-services.com [216.52.184.242]: 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for nikodemus at random-state.net
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:28:54PM +0100, Marc Battyani wrote:
No mod_lisp is also under a BSD style licence
Ok.
Hum... If you are Open Source only for mailing lists you should say so.
It's a sticky point. On the other hand we're happy to host mailing-lists for any and all CL topic, but generally tend to see project-specific mailing lists as part of project hosting... Dunno. Maybe we could make it clearer on the page. OTOH, it's not a hard and fast rule -- we prefer to err on the side of flexibility. ;-) And the final decision is always case-by-case anyways. Not that we've refused any yet, I think.
For now yes, I prefer to play with my own servers with my own tools.
Fair enough.
But I could at least add a project page if you want.
Nah. I don't see much point in putting up a project page when the project is elsewhere.
I've seen this but it's what I have done with mod_lisp and cl-pdf and the users/contributors ratio is a fairly good approximation of 0. :(
Er. I see the tarballs, yes. But no CVS (or other) repositories. The difference is really a big one. People who are likely to help want the bleeding edge: if it's broken they can try to fix it. If it works fine (like releases tend to) they'll just use it -- and don't touch the source until there's something they want from it. Also, it's nice to know that what you have is a good approximation of what the author has.
Releasing software takes time, you get lots of emails asking for support, etc... And time is the resource I'm missing the most! So I prefer to work on cl-typesetting to release it only when it's usable by an average user. So it's not that I'm against releasing it it's just that I don't think the advantages would be so great.
The point is that anonCVS / whatever is not the same as a release. People who tracks CVS don't generally expect the same level of support as people who use released. And when they do, they should be told that things don't work like that. ;-) Tarball = for users Repository = for developers
BTW I'm ok to discuss this on a suitable place if c.l.l is not the good one. (or by email)
Clump might be a fertile place to get people's views on this release/devel-access dichtomy. Better signal to noise ratio. Cheers, -- Nikodemus
Marc Battyani <marc.battyani@fractalconcept.com> writes:
If you are Open Source only for mailing lists you should say so.
Probably. I don't think it makes sense to host the mailing lists for comercial products here...
The point made by some folks on cll is quite true: giving people early access to source is much likelier to bring contributors -- especially giving them CVS/SVN/Arch access as opposed to just tarballs.
I've seen this but it's what I have done with mod_lisp and cl-pdf and the users/contributors ratio is a fairly good approximation of 0. :( Releasing software takes time, you get lots of emails asking for support, etc... And time is the resource I'm missing the most!
It is the same here. But CVS (or Arch, etc) also allows you to tell people that you are too busy at the moment, but that they are wellcome to try to make it better.
So I prefer to work on cl-typesetting to release it only when it's usable by an average user. So it's not that I'm against releasing it it's just that I don't think the advantages would be so great.
May be they are not; that depends, I bet, on personal judgement (in my opinion the advantages outweight any possible (i haven't found any) disadvantages). How about just trying it out? If it turns out to be bad for some reason, well, you can revert to tar-balls again. Regards, Mario.
participants (3)
-
Marc Battyani -
Mario Mommer -
Nikodemus Siivola