incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Bloodhound to join the Incubator
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2012 03:50:15 GMT
Greg, I do not care one bit how much commit activity happens at Trac. As long as there is some
kind of active community it is improper to fork it without their permission. As one of the
responses on their email thread says, "Its just rude".  You can choose to frame it however
you want, but if the plan is to take the current Trace code base and check it in to our subversion
repository, then in my book it is a fork.  

That said, it is still unclear to me how this will resolve itself. I have yet to see any outright
support of a fork.  Mostly, "hell, no" or "it's BSD licensed, let them do what they want",
which isn't exactly a resounding endorsement.

Most of the concern seems to be that they would like to be able to incorporate whatever work
is done in Bloodhound back into Trac but under a BSD license. I'm not sure why they have concerns
about incorporating Apache licensed code but simply working something out could be helpful.
I suspect hosting this project in git would also help.


On Jan 2, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 06:34, Jukka Zitting <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Hyrum K Wright
>> <> wrote:
>>> The Incubator proposal was publicized and discussed on trac-dev
>>> *simultaneously* with the discussion on general@incubator, and the
>>> reception was generally indifferent (as Greg mentioned earlier)
>> To add some pointers to this, the trac-dev discussion thread is at
>> [1]. A related vote was just called at [2].
>> The question about the fork status was also brought up [3] on general@
>> during discussion, and was IMHO answered pretty well [4].
>> Obviously the fear of this being "seen as a hostile fork" did become
>> reality at least for some, so I guess there's a lesson here for us
>> all.
> Note that the Trac principals suggested the fork with a "let's see
> where it goes" view. It is just a few of the other committers that are
> taking issue with Bloodhound. This can be seen simply by reading the
> thread on trac-dev.
> I think it important to highlight that trac-dev was notified on Dec 2
> of the Bloodhound proposal, but Ethan and others didn't even notice
> for three weeks. The activity level on trunk, and the active
> committers can be seen on Ohloh:
> Looking at the timeline on, it seems many of the
> commits are release-related or possibly on dev branches. It is kind of
> hard to tell. Trunk is certainly minimal activity.
> Christian is the most active committer
> ( and has been
> supportive of the Bloodhound effort.
> When I looked at this, a number of months ago, I never felt that we
> were "forking" an active project. The Trac community revolves mostly
> around the plugins rather than the core. I see Bloodhound as improving
> the core facilities (new features and hauling in certain plugins),
> resulting in a better default distribution (right now, you need to add
> a dozen plugins to get a useful Trac install). This kind of work has
> not been happening on the (core) Trac project.
> Cheers,
> -g
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message