Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Flip → Flipflop? #51

Open
pda opened this issue Aug 31, 2016 · 6 comments
Open

Flip → Flipflop? #51

pda opened this issue Aug 31, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@pda
Copy link
Owner

pda commented Aug 31, 2016

Flip has not been actively maintained. @rolftimmermans created a backwards-incompatible fork called Flipflop which looks in far better shape. Should Flipflop completely replace Flip? I can see a few ways forward:

  1. Merge Flipflop into Flip, tag it as v2.0.0, release the v2 gem, give @rolftimmermans / @voormedia full access to flip on GitHub and RubyGems. That doesn't rule out maintaining a v1 branch for backwards-compatible fixes. It would make sense in this option to shut down https://github.com/voormedia/flipflop pointing people to flip.
  2. Officially halt development on Flip, close all issues and PRs, modify the README to endorse migration to Flipflop.
  3. Bring some collaborators in to continue development on Flip, keep it separate from Flipflop. I think this only makes sense if it's to keep flip reasonably backwards-compatible compared to the breaking changes and trickier migration to Flipflop (assuming that's true?).
  4. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

In all cases, existing commits, tags and gem releases of flip would continue to work.

/cc @rolftimmermans @kwent @jcoyne @olleolleolle @jippeholwerda as recent contributors (sorry if I responded late or never to your PRs!)

@rolftimmermans
Copy link

Thanks for raising this issue and thanks for your great work on Flip!

I'm all in favour of some kind of merge. I don't have a particular preference. We chose to fork because our changes were a significant departure from Flip. Options 1 and 2 both make sense to me.

To be completely honest, I personally have no interest in maintaining the current (backwards-compatible) Flip v1 version, simply because the issues we ran into while using it out were fixed in Flipflop. So regarding option 1, someone else would have to fill the role to maintain a v1 branch.

@jcoyne
Copy link
Contributor

jcoyne commented Aug 31, 2016

I'll investigate switching to Flipflop. It would be helpful if you put "This gem is no longer maintained" in a header on the README.

@kwent
Copy link
Contributor

kwent commented Sep 7, 2016

Let's do it !

@olleolleolle
Copy link
Contributor

I'm for it - peaceful convergence is great!

@joshuapaling
Copy link

@rolftimmermans Are you still considering option 1) - merge? Or is it now basically option 2) - Flip is dead, we should migrate to FlipFlop?

@rolftimmermans
Copy link

Right now Flipflop works, and is available. So the default options are to just use Flipflop or keep using Flip. I don't mind either way.

I'd be happy if Flipflop is merged back to Flip and released as a 2.0 version. But I have no interest in maintaining the current (version 1) branch of Flip.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants