incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reto Bachmann-Gmür>
Subject Re: Clerezza status (Was: [Incubator Wiki] Update of "August2012" by BertrandDelacretaz)
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:34:38 GMT
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Tommaso Teofili

> > Do you have an idea what happened around a year ago when dev@ activity
> > dropped from the hundreds it was for a long time to the dozens where
> > it's mostly stayed since then? Alarmingly the low mark seems to have
> > been last month when only a single non-automated post was sent to
> > dev@.
> >
> As far as I can understand that mostly depends on some of the most active
> salaried developers got a new job thus they weren't able to keep up the
> same "contribution rate" to the project.

Personally it was also relaxing a bit after the quite exhausting release
process as well as focusing on the ecosystem around clerezza which now
benefits from having a stable version.

> Also, if I remember correctly, some discussions about the Clerezza security
> module were quite "hot" and that may have played a role in this, but
> actually I don't think that's the main reason.

This made the released process a bit harder. And it has become quite around
the Webid support, I think the clerezza module has no longer been updated
with the WebID spec.

> >
> > I recall Clerezza having release trouble due to complex/unreleased
> > dependencies for a long time. Could that have contributed to the loss
> > of momentum? I think it would be useful to somehow capture experience
> > like this, perhaps ultimately for use by ComDev in something like a
> > "How to maintain community momentum?" guide.
> >
> While I think that guide would be very useful (even if it'd quite hard to
> grasp the very deep reasons / solutions) I think the unreleased
> dependencies problem was resolved in not so long time.
I really started to hate that that rat plugin.

> I think the main reason for the low activity lately is related to the
> previous point about salaried devs and to the fact that the most commonly
> used pieces of Clerezza (e.g. the RDF API in Apache Stanbol) look quite ok
> and stable requiring a minimal development effort.
> At the same time there are a number of improvements that the PPMC is aware
> of and that could be done.
> Another hurdle to newcomers is in my opinion the huge number of modules /
> pieces Clerezza is made of which may look scaring at first :-)

Different parts of clerezza can be used independently, some part could be
leaner by using existing solutions like apache wink. I would be good to
allow developer who care only about the rdf api parts to join and have a
cleaner separation between individual aspects and the platform as a whole.

 I've not a strong opinion at the moment, I think Clerezza could be a nice
> TLP but at the same time I wonder if merging efforts with Apache Stanbol
> could be a better idea.
> I see lots of discussions about the Clerezza API happening on
> stanbol-dev@(since it's massively using it), and the two PPMCs share a
> number of
> members, however there could be good points against that merge (first of
> all: different high level scopes).

On one hand even clerezza itself seems to broad a project, after all what
have an rdf api and a scala based osgi-console to do with each other. So if
the project would be merged I think this should result in a platform
project with many subproject that can be used independentently. I think the
two project more than different high level scopes have a bit different
architectural practices, Stanbol is more broadly integrating modules with
different technologies while Clerezza is more focused on uniformity around
a data-driven pattern using the RDF modules.


Therefore my very early opinion is that Clerezza should go for TLP but
> after having cleaned its structure based on the most commonly used modules,
> tweak the website / docs in order to focus on providing users / devs with a
> smaller set of outstanding features.
> My 2 cents,
> Tommaso
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Jukka Zitting
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message