On 3/11/2019 6:59 AM, SebA wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 15:09, Axel Beckert <user-bc188e45dae4@xymon.invalid <mailto:user-bc188e45dae4@xymon.invalid>> wrote:
Well another option is just to convert the repo on SF from SVN to Git, but keep it hosted on SF. And then also to enable the bugs and patches area - if someone is going to monitor and maintain those areas. I have seen SF projects where no-one does. But most active FLOSS projects are on GitHub these days.
And with regards to being dead or not: Development greatly sped up
when J.C. Cleaver took over release management, but it indeed seems to
have stalled a little bit again. Then again, IIRC J.C. mostly took
over release management so that Henrik can focus on long-time
development. And if there is not much to fix in the current stable
releases, not having a stable release every few months is not
necessarily "dead", but might also be "stable, no relevant open
issues".
Yes, development did greatly speed up, but it practically ceased when J.C., I think, found difficulty merging the patches he had been using in his RPMs with Henrik's new 4.4 code. Or over 2 years ago (Jan 2016) when he released 4.3.28. I know the idea was that Henrik could focus on long-time development, but I think that ceased over 3 years ago - his last commit was in Jan 2016, with the last development type commit being Dec 2015. Both of them changed jobs (Henrik in Aug 2013 and J.C. in Sep 2015) and I'm guessing no longer used, or needed to develop, Xymon in their new roles and then their desire or capacity to keep putting time into the project dwindled.
This is a fair criticism, unfortunately. The primary issue for me since then has been having access to sufficiently high-throughput performance and load testing, which had been a significant aspect of the feature and dev cycle. I'd been hesitant to release further absent a true shakedown of the new code, however that was /never/ intended to be an indication of lack of interest in the project. It had seemed to have gotten to a point where a lot of the low-hanging fruit had been hit and there was -- once again -- a large delta in the jump to the prospective next release -- in fact, which I feel was similar to the previous stall.
(And yes, I'm still hoping and waiting for IPv6 support, too,
especially in xymonnet-based checks. Reporting to IPv6-only
servers is
no issue though, if you anyways use stunnel to encrypt the
client-reporting traffic.)
Kind regards, Axel
And I'm still hoping for TLS support in the client. I did try https
URL as the recipient (which should work - r7797) but I couldn't get
it to work in the RPM version
Knowing that there is still actually a demand for IPv6 is helpful. Simply put, what's most needed right now is a potentially large testbed for testing and validation of the code we have.
Regards,
-jc