elisa-developers team mailing list archive

[Olivier Tilloy <olivier@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Peter & all,

Here is a very late answer to your suggestion, I was away and I'm slowly
catching up...

On 2010-06-28, Peter <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM, David McLeod <daiode@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Peter (and other guys), I think as things were buzzing on IRC during the
>> time that Florian wrote this we kind of discussed it there.
> 
> Oh good - that makes sense given there was nothing on the mailing list.
> 
> Does that mean there isn't much enthusiasm for an interim release
> based on what is in the repository right now? i.e. essentially what would
> have been Moovida 1.0.10, still using Python and Pigment 0.3 but
> addressing small bugs etc. This is something I think would be useful,
> and time permitting I may be able to make some small contributions to.
> 
> Peter

Some patches have been committed to lp:elisa (the community branch)
since Moovida's last release. As Fluendo Embedded kind of officially
announced that they discontinue support for Moovida 1.0, there is no
hope that they will some day merge those patches and release them.
However, I see two sets of issues to taking over:

 1) Branding: we'd probably want to re-brand Moovida as Elisa, the code
is GPL but the name is a trademark. That implies additional work. Not
sure about the legal implications of not re-branding, if it's fine then
it would definitely save some work.

 2) Technical: issuing a release requires some technical facilities that
we don't have access to any longer, like a windows build environment
(they could be re-created, but trust me, it's a royal pain to set up).
Additionally, we'd need to publish such a release, and I'm thinking
about the plugins repository which we don't have access to, which we
probably want to host somewhere else (its code is not free and not
published anywhere, so it would need to be re-written). A possible
solution is to focus on releasing only tarballs and Ubuntu packages in a
PPA, that would significantly reduce the amount of work needed. Of
course that excludes all the windows users...

Did I miss important considerations? Do you have comments or additional
thoughts on the process? I'm not against doing maintainance releases,
but we need to clearly define the objectives and scope (and take into
account that, as for myself, I now have less spare time, having started
a new job yesterday).

Cheers,

Olivier