On 27 June 2010 22:02, Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de wrote:

Folks -

I feel like I've been thoroughly misunderstood in the recent discussion about using a distributed version control system. Let me try to make my point as clearly as possible:

First of all I don't *care* whether to use a "distributed" VCS or not. Is that clear? I really don't. What I care about for a version control system is how easy it is to use and how well it integrates with the system I use.

Having been clear on the initial point, my concern in this discussion is about *why* people seem to be excited about using an DVCS. What I'm hearing is "great, now we can fork" instead of "great, this will make it easier to contribute".

There is a difference between a "branch" and a "fork". A "branch" is something where you (usually temporarily) diverge from the main line in order to make the original product better. A "fork" is a (usually permanent) divergence from the main line WITHOUT the intention to make the original product better. For example, Cog is a branch, Pharo is a fork.

Branches are *great*. Branches allow us to explore directions without destabilizing the main development. Forks are *terrible*. Forks split communities, force duplication of efforts, and split mindshare that would better be spent on making the system better for everyone.

As a consequence, when I hear people being excited about the ability to "fork" I am starting to ask myself what we can do to avoid the need for forks. Forks don't just happen - there are events that lead up to it and I am trying to understand if there's something we can do to alleviate the perceived need for forking.

I'm not trying to tell you that you *must* host your private experiments on Squeak.org - I am asking to find out what kind of frustration exist in our current development process, and what we can do to address them.

Say, i want to build & maintain my custom-built VM with minor tweaks. Out of my mind: change the icon, splash image, initial window size, build using custom set of plugins and things like that. It is fine, when i only need these things in my corner, but when it goes to share these things, i have a problem: i can't meaningfully share it, without dubious sets of steps and instructions how to do it. Does these tweaks constituting a full-blown fork? I don't think so. Do a custom and/or highly experimental VMs constituting a new fork? I don't think so. It is the same as 'my custom 4.1-based image', which i want to share with people. So, what is wrong with that? And what harm it could do to the community?

As you said, fork is a divergence from the mainstream. But you missing one important detail: it is always a political decision, not a technical one. For forking, it really doesn't matters what tools you use(d). Because when you deciding to fork, this is a least thing you care about, obviously, because since you forked, you are free to choose any other tools you might wanna use, tools that different from those which used by mainstream.

My proposal to switch to DVCS was to make VM contribution process easier. Easier to share developer's artifacts for review and evaluation. Easier to track contributions and easier to integrate them to mainstream.

If results of some experiments, for some reason are not folded to mainstream, then there are only one good reason for it: they are not accepted by community because either not very good or userful one. And if looking from this point, what sense to fork then, since nobody will use it anyways?

But completely different case, when some artifacts are not integrated, because of technical issues related to VM build & distribution process or they are lost and forgotten, or there are simply not enough time for core developers to review them. This is not acceptable, because it discourages developers from contributing to VM and creates an atmosphere of closed cult of high priests, which the only one who can decide what to do and when.

Cheers,  - Andreas

Em 27-06-2010 16:02, Andreas Raab escreveu:

Folks -

I feel like I've been thoroughly misunderstood in the recent discussion about using a distributed version control system. Let me try to make my point as clearly as possible:

First of all I don't *care* whether to use a "distributed" VCS or not. Is that clear? I really don't. What I care about for a version control system is how easy it is to use and how well it integrates with the system I use.

Having been clear on the initial point, my concern in this discussion is about *why* people seem to be excited about using an DVCS. What I'm hearing is "great, now we can fork" instead of "great, this will make it easier to contribute".

There is a difference between a "branch" and a "fork". A "branch" is something where you (usually temporarily) diverge from the main line in order to make the original product better. A "fork" is a (usually permanent) divergence from the main line WITHOUT the intention to make the original product better. For example, Cog is a branch, Pharo is a fork.

Branches are *great*. Branches allow us to explore directions without destabilizing the main development. Forks are *terrible*. Forks split communities, force duplication of efforts, and split mindshare that would better be spent on making the system better for everyone.

Forks are not always terrible. Sometimes they're just necessary. What's terrible is when forked communities keep frictioning. I put things like a divorce: when it happens friendly it's ok but litigious is usually nasty.

In the case of smalltalk and more particularly of squeak I am sorry and bitter about the forks because community is just too small to allow a friendly divorce. What is meant here?

First: there's just not enough people to ensure each fork will go ahead. Most work is done in personal basis, without any kind of corporate support (even academic) and results are not flourishing in terms of commercial products, PhDs or even relevant papers. Fact is that even in squeak.org we can't find a relevant list of recent papers. Much is implementation of infrastructure that may turn out to have commercial value (like seaside) but where are (really significant) commercial results? Why seaside (for instance) didn't catch up like, let's say, zope & people are still usually unaware even about its existence? IMOH one of reasons is that efforts are very fractionated and potential investors are averse of the kind of dispute that arouse inside community.

Second: the forks didn't happen due to extreme different visions related to architecture or other key technical issues... in fact, most of discrepancy originated in fields that could not be further from scientific or technical development. Thus, science and technology didn't profit from the split and key pending issues (like concurrency, etc) stay open.

Third: as result of (1) and (2) above, it's not easy to get bucks ($$$) for research & development either for squeak or any of the forks. Ok... perhaps one or other of the parts receive some funding for some period of time but if no papers/PhD/products or media coverage show up money will just go away and what will stay is a bad name...

IMHO, all "forks" should be branches. It would allow people to keep cooperating in a friendly way. It would allow people to concentrate in experiments, science and industry and let "administrative tasks" for a small committee instead of having "administrative committees" managing tiny split communities. In Portuguese we say: too many chiefs for so few Indians ("muitos caciques para poucos índios").

As a consequence, when I hear people being excited about the ability to "fork" I am starting to ask myself what we can do to avoid the need for forks. Forks don't just happen - there are events that lead up to it and I am trying to understand if there's something we can do to alleviate the perceived need for forking.

I'm not trying to tell you that you *must* host your private experiments on Squeak.org - I am asking to find out what kind of frustration exist in our current development process, and what we can do to address them.

Cheers,

• Andreas

Best regards,

CdAB