[jdev] xmppony 0.1 is released!

[Anaël Verrier]

Norman Rasmussen a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Anaël Verrier <elghinn at free.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Why a fork? Because xmpppy was almost dead in the last 2 years. Because
>> there
>> are so many things which do not suit me (like the lack of PEP 8-compliance,
>> the
>> lack of file transfer support, the coding style, the hierarchy of the code,
>> the
>> "plugin" system, the simulation of heritage, etc.).
>>
> 
> As one of the co-maintainers of xmpp.py, why is this the first time i've
> heard of this? Alexey has recently contacted me to say that he's got time
> to work on xmpp.py fixing bugs, etc, and was due to release 0.5rc1 soon.

1) I have submited a patch[1] 11 months ago.
But my patch was waiting without responses. It was not alone[2][3][4][5].

2) No clues the project was alive.
See 1).
There was only few commits in the last year, and even less if we don't count 
those which do not touch with the code (like [6] and [7])

3) We didn’t announce anything before we had something to announce.
I do not have as a practice to announce a project prematurely.

4) Misfortunate timing.
I have forked the 03/26/09 as you can see on the project timeline[8]. And 
released it today. When I have forked, Alexey had not improved yet with the 
code. Thus I had already made things before he is not put at it.

Yes, when I make the release, that made already 4-5 days that there had been of 
the activity on the repository. But I only saw it when the release was done.

But does that really change something?

5) Grégoire Menuel proposed a patch[9] for the file transfer.
But you refused it. And whatever is the reason, at the current hour we can not 
still make a file transfer with xmpppy.

I find important to have the file transfer, in particular for a bot.

For example, Erwan Briand, the author of CodingTeam[10] and administrator of 
codingteam.net, envisages to make a robot by which one will be able to download 
the versions of the projects directly since jabber without having to go on the 
site. And it is only one example among so many others.

[1] 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1961193&group_id=97081&atid=616917
[2] 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1962375&group_id=97081&atid=616917
[3]
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1780774&group_id=97081&atid=616917
[4]
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1929415&group_id=97081&atid=616915
[5]
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1949483&group_id=97081&atid=616915

[6] 
http://xmpppy.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/xmpppy/xmpppy/xmpp/protocol.py?r1=1.58&r2=1.59
[7] 
http://xmpppy.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/xmpppy/xmpppy/xmpp/protocol.py?r1=1.57&r2=1.58

[8] http://trac.last-exile.org/xmppony/changeset/1

[9]
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1122740972.42ebaaec4a799%40webmail.insa-lyon.fr&forum_name=xmpppy-devel

[10] http://codingteam.codingteam.net/


> 
> I have not yet reviewed the differences, but would you be interested in
> feeding back your changes to xmpp.py?
> 

Our fixes are and will be free software, you’ll be able to take them back if you 
want. However, I have the intention to change quite a lot of things: revamp 
simplexmp, replace debug with standard logging, get rid of fake inheritance, 
etc. Are these ground-breaking changes suitable for incorporation in xmpppy?



--
Anaël Verrier
xmpp:elghinn at last-exile.org
GPG: 1024D/65B95D84