-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 202
Discussion about further naming and future of this project. #351
Comments
@AriaMoradi |
As mentioned in the other issue, I vote for option 1 since our free time is a real bottleneck here. |
It sounds like the workforce is such a limiting factor that Option 2 won't even be feasible. Maybe I'm not understanding Option 1 correctly, but the easiest solution would be to archive the antimicro repo and only maintain the antimicrox repo. |
That is option 1, yes. |
I think my best case scenario is still the best choice out of the 3 here. |
But before archiving it we would push some AntiMicroX releases to ensure sites like this , this and this will get "our" version. |
@AriaMoradi Let me paste here your best case scenario for others (from: AntiMicroX/antimicrox#34 (comment)):
I have added your best case scenario as option number 3. (please correct me if I made a mistake in rewriting it) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
We did our first step. With release 3.2.0 we have a fully functional Windows version. Now we should decide what to do next with legacy repo. We could for example release final release of AntiMicro with information about recommended migration to AntiMicroX and archive/abandon this repository. This would be a good attempt to migrate users to new app, but it would mean abandoning We could also try to migrate newer code (pull all the changes from AntiMicroX and rename it back to AntiMicro). It would mean some mess in packaging for systems distributing What do you think, guys? Which solution would be better? Do you have any other ideas? |
Paweł Kotiuk dixit:
I think it would be good to ask people working with packages
***@***.*** @mirabilos @gombosg @manokara ) what do they think.
Debian ships an “antimicro” package, but it contains “antimicrox”
binaries. I would very much prefer to not change that, as it will
cause user confusion if the binaries are renamed.
While the first package included “antimicro” binaries, back then,
we changed it to “antimicrox” without changing the binary package
name because that was not yet contained in a release and renaming
packages is much harder. But now, people will have been using it,
and it was released as part of Debian bullseye (*buntu in hirsute
although they had the 2.23 antimicro in focal because of schedule
differences for releases).
If we rename the binaries etc. I’ll keep compatibility symlinks
for one release (which is effort, but only once or twice).
bye,
//mirabilos
--
„Cool, /usr/share/doc/mksh/examples/uhr.gz ist ja ein Grund,
mksh auf jedem System zu installieren.“
-- XTaran auf der OpenRheinRuhr, ganz begeistert
(EN: “[…]uhr.gz is a reason to install mksh on every system.”)
|
Hey @pktiuk ! I'm very happy about the Windows binary! I'm also against renaming. We've been using the AntimicroX name for a while - be proud of it, keep it and don't break stuff for the growing user base. :) If somebody wants to migrate from antimicro (mostly Windows users), they can still do it, it's easy. (I.e. I'd just put a notice in the antimicro repo to use AntimicroX and archive it. In my opinion, no need to do more.) |
Do we have control over the release at the Microsoft Store? I'm not entirely against reviving this repo, but I think most preople actively using antimicro that want to keep it up to date with the latest goodies and fixes are probably aware of antimicrox. I know some people don't really care for the latest release of software they use as long as it works for their use case. That said, the discoverability of the original antimicro is undisputed. I asked in the Solus development channel and I think they wouldn't object to the rename if that's what's decided. |
No, but we know who controls it |
Even if we decide to archive antimicro we should somehow redirect downloads of antimicro from sourceforge (13,761 This Week ) to antimicrox. |
To properly tackle the issue of redirecting the remaining antimicro userbase, I will just release that last antimicro release with information about recommended migration to antimicrox. |
@jsbackus |
There will be only regular windows package in this release (I can't figure out how to build portable one :/ After changing |
Done. |
Introduction
As described in #349 there are new maintainers of this repository
It would be good to discuss what to do further in terms of development of both projects: AntiMicroX and AntiMicro
AntiMicroX was a fork of AntiMicro created in 2018, when AntiMicro already stopped development.
Later also legacy AntiMicroX was abandoned.
In that case I decided to start maintaining everything starting from the latest code.
Maybe it was not the best decision, maybe it was. I don't know. Now we are in this place we have legacy unmaintained app and the new one with a new name and branding.
What we can do now
There are two possible target approaches:
1. Focus on AntiMicroX - push code from AntiMicroX and overwrite app's name - it would be used for redirecting entire interest to the new repository with new code. Pushing these changes wouldn't happen at once, because after some time AntiMicroX stopped supporting Windows. We would just publish the latest release still supporting it and slowly continue our work at AntiMicroX with restoring its support.
Finally, we would push here AntiMicroX release restoring Windows support, leave a note about moving this project and (potentially) archive it.
Pros :
Cons:
2. Focus on AntiMicro - Backport everything to AntiMicro, use AntiMicroX as base of bug fixes and new features and apply them on top of master (apply all of them and rename everything back to AntiMicro or apply them step by step without messing with old name). Finally, we would end up with a new and shiny AntiMicro release containing all of AntiMicroX features and fixes, we could archive AntiMicroX and continue development here.
Pros:
Cons:
3. Move entire development to AntiMicro and link it with publishing
legacy
releases (idea of @AriaMoradi) - we could rename current master branch master tomaster_legacy
and force push the latest AntiMicroX master to new master here, and later rename it to AntiMicro. From this point we could continue development of our cutting-edge master branch until it will be ready to be used instead ofmaster_legacy
as a source of releases for Windows.Pros :
Cons:
What do you think about this? Let us know in the comments.
Update
AntiMicro will have one more (the last) release with included deprecation message, there will be also some cleanup in the issues on this repo and later it will be archived.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: