Wow, what a fair, objective and never polemically post in #38 ... and I'm really astonished, how it could stand in common line with earlier rumors, assumptions and statements, like those:
https://www.ip-phone-forum.de/threads/boxmatrix-svn-server-und-freetz-svn-backup.302398/
@frater: You should really try to get an own impression - especially the arguments regarding the involved people and their count are very funny, if you try to look behind the scenes.
Nevertheless I want to state, that I earlier did not try to advise against using the "freetz-ng" fork:
but that's no obvious reason to wary from it.
This fork is mainly controlled by one person, and even prior contributors do not have write access any more.
Let's have a look first at the "freetz-ng" fork and its contributors/collaborators:
Code:
vidar:/tmp/trunk $ svn log | grep "2019)" | sed -n -e "s#r[0-9]* | \([^ ]*\) *.*#\1#p" | sort | uniq -c
5 administrator
318 fda77
vidar:/tmp/trunk $
This means ... in 2019 (the fork started on 2019-01-30) there were 318 commits by fda77 and 5 commits by administrator to the SVN based fork named "freetz-ng" - whether there were other contributors of code and what they did contribute in detail, is not ascertainable as easy.
The start of this fork was - in contrast to text from #38 - not from another or new SVN server. No, the fork has its roots on GitHub, too - and it only moved later to SVN, while co-operations (with low efforts) and synergy effects for Freetz users got blocked at the same time.
The original Freetz project had its GitHub mirror for years, before it has moved to GitHub overall. The "freetz-ng" fork had its GitHub mirror (or its GitHub content) for 'round about two weeks and there's (now since 6 weeks) no further activity visible, to give the users the "freedom" to select the used SCM system themselves.
It looks to me, as if these words:
Freetz-ng will offer both, Freetz-org (the highly restricted fork) will not offer this freedom.
are nothing more than rhetoric - providing ONLY a SVN repository to Freetz users isn't really the promised "freedom" ... it's more or less only an attempt to fool them. At least, if not the words, but the facts count.
But I'm a little bit uncertain, too ... especially while facing the unsettling, insisted question resulting from the quote above: Where and why is the "freetz" fork (let's call it a fork for now and pay our attention first to more important things) "highly restricted"? Especially, if you take the own words of
@hippie2000, that it's unimportant, which tool is needed/used to checkout the code, into account?
Best is still, you compare the count of contributors - by yourself - with the "fork" of this project on github.com:
Code:
vidar:/home/GitHub/YourFreetz $ git log --since=2019-01-30 | sed -n -e "s|^Author: \([^<]*\).*|\1|p" | sort | uniq -c
22 Eugene Rudoy
2 PeterPawn
7 PrinzVonBillAir
9 WileC
12 YourFritz
14 f-666
2 f666
3 fda77
vidar:/home/GitHub/YourFreetz $
Looks like a dissent to the quoted text from above to me - there's not only a single person as contributor.
And last, but not least, let's have a look at this quote:
there's no "the freetz" any more. It splitted in multiple forks.
OK, what's a fork? There are two different kinds of "forks" ... one of them describes the existence of an own copy of the master repository for each developer, where (s)he may create and test new code, until it's ready to get merged into the master repository. Such "forks" are part of the daily work and are a normal step in a workflow ... obviously not that, what was meant above. Do you agree?
The other meaning is more organizational - a project splits (ah ... there's the same word as above) into groups, where each of these groups has different ideas regarding the further development of this project. So they want a break-off of collaboration ... that's the "split" for the project.
With these aspects of distinction let us now count the forks first, which claim to have different directions of development. Even using the table on boxmatrix.info, I get a result of ... <drum-roll> ... 2.
The repository of
@DHU is still hosted on GitHub and was last synchronized with freetz:master on 03-24-2019. It contains some additions and extensions to use a FRITZ!Box device with home-automation platform FHEM. I would not see this as a "fork" with an idea of different "directions of development" and "contributors" in mind - it's a "normal" fork of the "original freetz" repo, following the "GitFlow".
The next one is "freetz-ng", which is only available from the new SVN repository. It contains - more or less - the Freetz content from beginning of 2019, with some new patches by fda77 ... but this fork lacks most of other contributors, if you'll not take
@hippie2000 into account - looks like he's the person behind the "administrator" identity.
And the remaining "fork" is not really a fork (
https://github.com/Freetz/freetz/network/members), it's still the root and a continuation of the project from the last years on GitHub (exclusively now). Hopefully now with a more open handling, 'cause there were earlier really some reasons for disputes, but that's another question.
Nevertheless the "freetz/freetz" project on GitHub is still the same project and I can't see any reason, why someone (with an objective view) should call a (current) count of two forks "multiple". And why should he try to deny, that "the old freetz project" (or call it 'genuine', 'authentic', 'real', 'legit' and so on
) still exists and - even more important - is meanwhile with more contributors as in the last two years more than alive?
There's one (means: a single) fork of "freetz" with a different attitude and (probably) different targets... but even for this fork the further decisions of directions aren't really clear. OK, removing full-functioning parts from the fork and replacing them with a worser solution (as shown above) or removing partial functions completely, is obviously also an attitude and at least a sign of the selected direction of development - I didn't want to embezzle this fact.
But even then there's no (plausible) reason to give someone the impression, that Freetz has been splitted into
various smaller forks with different intentions and teams. The collaborators from "freetz-ng" (as the only real fork with an organizational aspect) did not contribute to Freetz in the last years (let's select a concrete number: the last three years). Therefore the original project did not even lose a single active contributor due to the existence of the "freetz-ng" fork. Only
@Whoopie has left the Freetz team, but afaik he did not enter the "freetz-ng" team instead.
fair for all forks unlike the org fork which claims to be the one and only and excludes a lot of manpower which has to use own ways to release.
Yes ... these famous lots of manpower. But definitely the owner of the "freetz-ng" fork is not willing to contribute to Freetz
the usual way - (s)he wants to get some "special permissions". Otherwise (s)he requests to ignore his/her changes to his/her own fork (
https://www.ip-phone-forum.de/threads/freetz-ng.302327/page-5#post-2317571) - this desire was ignored in some cases, that's why his/her name "fda77" is in the above list of contributors to "freetz/freetz" (his/her earlier synonym "cuma" was an active contributor until February 2014). If you're interested in the discussions regarding this topic on GitHub, you may read about it here:
https://github.com/Freetz/freetz/issues/89
And where did the "original project" ever claim, that it wants to be the only one? It's a demand from Freetz users, that there should be a common project, containing all the "goodies" from all collaborators. But collaboration requires a common understanding and the acceptance of and compliance with common rules, too. And if someone explicitly states, that (s)he is not ready to use the available (and free) tools, which were and are in many project the "best practice", how could anybody help him/her or collaborate with him/her? There's a suggestion, how it should and may work (see the link from above) ... if the consignee doesn't want to collaborate this way, others aren't any longer in charge here, to offer him/her other options. If the offered "manpower" leads in the end to more tasks and efforts for others, it's not worth any further thinking - and that's probably the core from earlier statements of the "developer community" of Freetz, regarding the activities of former developer "cuma".
