Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

[Christian Grothoff]

On 2/9/19 5:04 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> I have some inline comments as well below, but let us bring this discussion 
> down to a more practical consensus maybe.
> I think we are arguing too much in the extremes and that is not helpful. I am 
> not saying we should compartmentalise
> GNUnet into the tiniest possible components.
> It's just that I think it is becoming a bit bloated.
> 
> That being said, _most_ of what is in GNUnet today is perfectly fine in a 
> single repo and package.
> For now, at least let us not add another one (gtk) as well?
> 
> Then, we remain with
> 
> - reclaim (+the things reclaim needs wrt libraries)
> - conversation (+X)
> - secureshare (+X)
> - fs (+X)
> 
> as components/services on my personal "list".
> I suggest that _if_ I find the time, I could extract reclaim into a separate 
> repo as soon as we have a CI and I can
> test how it works and we can learn from the experience.
> Then, we can discuss if we want to do the same with other components, one at 
> a time, if there is consensus and a person that
> would be willing to take ownership (I am pretty sure we talked about this 
> concept last summer as well).

Maybe you could start with extracting the SecuShare components? That
should do for a first "experience", and be a bit more effective at
reducing bloat as well ;-).

That said, splitting of reclaim seems also much less problematic than
fs/conversation, and if you then integrate reclaim with the libgabe
tree, the overall number of downloads/installation for reclaim wouldn't
go up, so that would certainly kill my argument of making the
installation more complex (might indeed simplify it, as one doesn't have
to remember to install libgabe before GNUnet to get reclaim).

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature