Bram, if you got hit by a bus tomorrow..
captain stubing
Marc Weber
(If Bram gets hit by a bus I hope the bus was driving at walking
speed only)
Multiple people have access to the sourceforge website. Thus there are
ways to continue this project easily. I think the same applies to
mailinglists (but I'm not sure)
hg sources: http://vim.sourceforge.net/download.php
At least two clones are at github:
http://vim-wiki.mawercer.de/wiki/vim-development/development.html
And the source of vim is distributed dozen of times on many computers
(because a lot of people do compile vim from source).
most scripts of vim.sf.net are mirrored at vim-scripts (minus those
having duplicate names - but they could be the exception).
Often used plugins are installed many times by users - so there should
be enough duplication.
Currently neovim could make progress soon - so there might be more
important questions if neovim succeeds and gains users - and how to
cope/merge continue then. But we can wait 1-2 months before thinking
about decisions - right now vim is the only stable solution for work
IMHO.
So there is not too much risk (not much more than has been in the past -
I mean Yzis was a serious fork, neovim is another one happening right
now)
(As always its just my limited view)
Marc Weber
Matteo Cavalleri
> > What should we do? What happens to your sources?
>
> Do you not have a clone of the Mercurial repository? What kind of
> question is this?
I think he's talking about Bram sources, not vim's. I'm not sure we can clone a human right now... science needs to advance further.
Andre Sihera
Christian Brabandt
> On 26/02/14 12:15, guns wrote:
>> On Tue 25 Feb 2014 at 10:14:31PM -0500, captain stubing wrote:
>>
>>> What should we do? What happens to your sources?
>> Do you not have a clone of the Mercurial repository? What kind of
>> question is this?
>
user
that will eventually decide which repository will be used as the master
one.
I really don't see any point in this discussion.
Best,
Christian
Andre Sihera
On 26/02/14 21:06, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> Am 2014-02-26 12:58, schrieb Andre Sihera:
>> On 26/02/14 12:15, guns wrote:
>>> On Tue 25 Feb 2014 at 10:14:31PM -0500, captain stubing wrote:
>>>
>>>> What should we do? What happens to your sources?
>>> Do you not have a clone of the Mercurial repository? What kind of
>>> question is this?
>>
>> It's the stinging question about who gets control, obviously.
>
> What do you mean? Everybody can publish its own repository. It's the user
> that will eventually decide which repository will be used as the master
> one.
>
Bram is the one major bottleneck in this project for getting patches and
new features implemented. But, ironically, he is also the anchor that has
kept the project together on the straight and very narrow path.
Anchor disappears, ship floats away.
Everybody can publish their own repository and, judging by the amount of
arguing and bickering about rewrites, new features, this and that language
and the many patches that don't get integrated etc., everybody probably
will. End of VIM as we know it.
> I really don't see any point in this discussion.
>
as he currently performs them, you would not be interested in the role?
> Best,
> Christian
>
Christian Brabandt
> and
> new features implemented. But, ironically, he is also the anchor that
> has
> kept the project together on the straight and very narrow path.
>
> Anchor disappears, ship floats away.
>
> Everybody can publish their own repository and, judging by the amount
> of
> arguing and bickering about rewrites, new features, this and that
> language
> and the many patches that don't get integrated etc., everybody probably
> will. End of VIM as we know it.
years ago
with the many vi clones, when vim became the de facto standard. So what?
>> I really don't see any point in this discussion.
>
> So I suppose if Bram died tomorrow and you were offered controlling
> duties
> as he currently performs them, you would not be interested in the role?
other
role? Perhaps in the distant future I have no interest in developing
anymore?
Can we please focus on actual problems instead of discussing some
hypothetical
questions? Thanks.
Best,
Christian
Andre Sihera
On 26/02/14 21:36, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> And the user will decide, which fork to use instead. As happened 20
> years ago
> with the many vi clones, when vim became the de facto standard. So what?
future of
my editor of choice is going to be assured in the event that anybody
(including
possibly yourself if you took that opportunity) could/would not to do it
any more.
Especially those individuals *who have paid money* to contribute to and
further
ViM's development, they have a right to know.
> Can we please focus on actual problems instead of discussing some
> hypothetical
> questions? Thanks.
"valued" by
a large "user base", this is far from "hypothetical"; it is a very real
and non-trivial
discussion.
You want to see how it really should be done? Then read this:
http://p2pfoundation.net/Linux_-_Governance
(section called "Governance").
At least I know that Linux, its stability, and all it stands for, is
assured with or
without Mr. Torvalds. I'm sure that the world's biggest corporations
feel equally
as confident as I do which is why they stake their reputations on it
24/7, 365.
I agree, there are patches and features that need implementing. And for
you, as
a person who regularly contributes patches, that's a position I'm sure
you find
easy to take. However the *majority* of users who don't get involved in
physical
patch writing, will care more about whether their editor of choice has a
stable
future or not, not necessarily what goes into it. They are especially
not interested
in seeing maintenance for their favourite editor splinter into multiple
factions and
watching a big free-for-all to see who "wins", as if it was some kind of
horse race.
That kind of upheaval is something we don't need and shouldn't have to
inflict on
our users.
For all of us, but especially for our loyal "user base", this is an
issue that should
be addressed to some degree sooner rather than later.
Yuri Vic
> assured with or
> without Mr. Torvalds. I'm sure that the world's biggest corporations
> feel equally
> as confident as I do which is why they stake their reputations on it
> 24/7, 365.
Don't be so sure. Every successful project is driven by strong individual(s) leading it. Once individual(s) are gone, with no strong successors, the project will go down. Your opinion is exactly what corporate managers want to believe, that they would set up some rules, and as long as those rules are in place and enforced, even monkeys can execute them and make the enterprise successful. But this is just a dream, a very comforting one, but not realistic. There is no successful governance by committee, or by popular vote, or by following some preset rules. Should be right people in place, this is the key. No 24/7, 365 security, sorry -)
Jan Larres
> "valued" by a large "user base", this is far from "hypothetical"; it
> is a very real and non-trivial discussion.
cause that has nothing to do with Vim as such and rewards people who do
that with some (non-binding) votes. That's it. It's not a contract that
gives you any specific rights to Vim.
-Jan
--
-[ OpenPGP key ID: 00A0FD5F ]-
I don't need to be born again. I got it right the first time.
-- Dennis Miller
cptstubing
Thanks, Matteo -- you picked up on my veiled humor there. The question was meant to get everyone thinking about how this project works and about what would happen if Bram were gone. In the corporate world, a company might take out a "key man" insurance policy that would provide them with the necessary resources to recover from the untimely death of an irreplaceable or highly skilled/specialized person in the company.
It was short and maybe a little flippant-sounding the way I asked it, but I'm serious, and I hope Bram and everyone else will ponder the question a little. I am in no way meaning to denigrate anyone here -- it's been Bram's vision, dedication, and discerning guidance that has made vim the most excellent editor that it is today.
When I was considering the situation, I too had a vision like what Andre mentioned -- dozens of forked projects and no clear direction for the average user or even the empowered one who simply doesn't have the time to evaluate all of the choices. Further, I can envision a scenario where someone does take the helm of the project by nature of his/her leadership skills, yet lacks Bram's vision and steers us all into the rocks.
As for the assertion that governance by committee does not work, I challenge you to consider the longevity and the vastness-of-reach in each and every one of our lives that has come out of organizations like ANSI, ISO, and IEEE. Consider, also, POSIX: It's a mix of certain things that were not standardized, but were essentially de facto standards of a certain epoch, and other guidelines that were decided upon by committee. Even vim itself is mostly compliant with the POSIX vi standard, and effort was clearly made to document the places where it breaks that standard (vi_diff.txt).
So, yes, barring the possibility of cloning Bram, we should consider how we might continue to keep vim going as strongly as it is today with him at the helm. He himself is in a position to structure the future of the project beyond his own corporeal involvement, and I merely ask him to consider the question and the possible scenarios that he could influence now if he wanted to set such wheels in motion.
Ben Fritz
>
>
> When I was considering the situation, I too had a vision like what Andre mentioned -- dozens of forked projects and no clear direction for the average user or even the empowered one who simply doesn't have the time to evaluate all of the choices. Further, I can envision a scenario where someone does take the helm of the project by nature of his/her leadership skills, yet lacks Bram's vision and steers us all into the rocks.
>
> As for the assertion that governance by committee does not work, I challenge you to consider the longevity and the vastness-of-reach in each and every one of our lives that has come out of organizations like ANSI, ISO, and IEEE. Consider, also, POSIX: It's a mix of certain things that were not standardized, but were essentially de facto standards of a certain epoch, and other guidelines that were decided upon by committee. Even vim itself is mostly compliant with the POSIX vi standard, and effort was clearly made to document the places where it breaks that standard (vi_diff.txt).
>
A committee certainly could govern development, voting if needed when consensus cannot be reached. There are some good ideas in this online book about managing an open-source project:
In particular: