I think this sort of discussion is exactly what I was thinking of when I asked
in my initial working group paper (Christian, please copy to Bernd and Oliver,
and explain the background - if you haven't already), when I asked something
like:
What is the current status of BOINC? Is it a computer science experiment, or is
it mature scientific infrastructure?
To me, as a relative outsider and not a technical expert at your levels, it
feels as if "throw everything into master and see if it floats" is the
experimentalist's answer. I hope I'm not distorting your words too much if I
suggest that the 'mature infrastructure' approach - if it is to survive the
next 15 years - needs pre-release development branches for each of client,
server, and API, all with their own distinct version control; and a separate
branch for major direction changes like the NSF-funded TBD (which I suspect -
though it wasn't made explicit at the time of the commit - is what really
sparked this thread off).
On Thursday, 20 July 2017, 16:12, Oliver Bock <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 20/07/17 11:11 , Oliver Bock wrote:
> If you don't adapt and progress it
> can only get worse, in particular from the point of view of newly
> interested scientists and contributors.
Just in case this came across in an offending way: the "you" wasn't
meant personally, it was meant as in "one" or referring to BOINC as a
project. Sorry if I phrased this ambiguously in my non-native tongue.
Oliver
_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
