[rrd-developers] [RRDCacheD] Developing RRDCacheD as separate project (was: Authentication)

[Florian Forster]

Hi Tobi, Thorsten, Kevin, and list,

sorry I took my time to answer – I wanted to sleep on this first and
don't make any premature decisions.

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:31:02PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> I love the rrdcached functionality and all the work you did on it and
> I would not want to miss it.
> 
> But it also makes me sad to see you angry or unhappy. So if you feel
> that it is better for you to run your own show, I am perfectly ok with
> you doing a fork of the cache daemon and hooking it up to librrd. This
> will give you the freedom to develop it in any direction you feel is
> sensible.

Yes, I think separating the development would make sense and ultimately
the open-source community will benefit from it. The bonding between the
daemon and RRDtool would be lessened, but that isn't necessarily a bad
thing in my opinion. RRDtool wouldn't have yet another binary interface
to worry about and new releases of either project could be made whenever
appropriate and independently from one another.

I'd like to act upon a consensus here, though. “Forking” the daemon,
i. e. leaving the daemon in RRDtool and developing a second one, is out
of question for me: This would create a diversity nobody would benefit
from.

It'd be nice to hear some more opinions on the matter, especially which
development model Kevin would prefer and whether or not he'd volunteer
to maintain a separate project?

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 07:52:21AM -0700, Thorsten von Eicken wrote:
> Guys, I fear this is descending into a non productive direction. Why
> don't the two of you just pick up an old-fashioned phone or link up
> via IRC or whatnot and just "talk it out". I'm sure you can resolve
> this disagreement in a nice manner that allows us to continue enjoying
> the good collaboration between collectd and rrdtool. Cheers!

Actually, I think the discussion is productive and I'm sure we will come
to a conclusion everybody can agree with. I'm sorry if my more heated
statements made this debate feel like a conflict and would like to
apologize for the form – I stand by my arguments, however.

Regards,
-octo
-- 
Florian octo Forster
Hacker in training
GnuPG: 0x91523C3D
http://verplant.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.oetiker.ch/pipermail/rrd-developers/attachments/20090410/e2bbfa1b/attachment.bin