Also, the Fabric 2.0-alpha (release branch) was out in April 2019, beta in December 2019, etc.
v2.0.0-alpha - April 9, 2019
v2.0.0-beta - December 12, 2019 v2.0.0 - January 29, 2020
v2.0.1 - February 26, 2020 ...
So what I suggest - is to be realistic.
As many of the heavy/rich players are working on proprietary versions... with very nice features and integrations to their clouds/offerings... and it's getting more and more to - expecting 4 contributors to meet the Active requirements on a "global scale" may be too much to ask.
Not because they (the contributors) are rejecting other contributors. Quite the opposite: because the interested parties in the framework, keep on enhancing their proprietary versions. And that's only for one of the frameworks.
p.s. I always/sometimes forget the most important word in a sentence here and there, which is "not". I meant to write:
> I know people had good intentions in 2016 and some later on explained to us that each top-level project will work together here... but really, it did [not] work. So I think that it would be better to kill this after so many years, and port into a Fabric project, under Fabric, side by side to Fabric, or.
Jonathan
HACERA
Hi Brian,
Yes, I saw and we follow the 4 contributors. I highly respect the attempts/work.
I still maintain/think that if all the effort is around Fabric (2.0, 2.1 and the upcoming 2.2) then we should call this project a Hyperledger Fabric Explorer. Or, one of these generated names, I don't know, "HL Ranger/Jeep/Wrangler..." ;-)
I know people had good intentions in 2016 and some later on explained to us that each top-level project will work together here... but really, it did not work. So I think that it would be better to kill this after so many years, and port into a Fabric project, under Fabric, side by side to Fabric, or.
It would be much better if we call it what it is, and hopefully (or maybe) some in the Fabric group will give the "Fabric Explorer" project a hand... than just leave it to slowly catch up.
Long-long time ago, we/it was suggested that this will be under Fabric. We wanted to encourage others to participate, but it remained a Fabric explorer (last supported versions are 1.4.0 - 1.4.8).
The way I read it: If a project is focused on one ledger, all the efforts, intentions, plans and resources are there, now for several years, and they contributors want to continue to focus on that one ledger - then it will also be easier on the contributors to work under a better-defined scope (and task), from a governance perspective.
Otherwise, it will be kept in the Backlog for quarters, because we want to encourage their effort, while it's far from being THE greenhouse level, all terrain, all 4x4 ledgers explorer.
Then, with the right scale, it will be possible and better (more fairly) judge/measure "Active"-ity.
The report shows them as active, backed
up by the analytics:
I see in their status they're working
towards Fabric 2.1 support.
I don't see evidence, from reviewing
the chat or email, that they've rejected or discouraged
contributions from others. If anything, I see them hungry for
additional help. Do you read it differently?
Brian
On 6/25/20 6:56 AM, Jonathan Levi
(HACERA) wrote:
Just took a look at the backlog.
Are people still thinking of not killing the Hyperledger
Explorer project? Or are others planning to make it Active any
time soon?
When was the last time this project did work for Fabric
(with the various channels), Sawtooth, Iroha, Besu, ...
Or, do we have companies that are willing to donate their
own explorer code, for each of the ledgers? After years of
"patiently" waiting for it, we all simply developed our own
ones, literally each of the cloud providers had to write
their own, the consultants, the system integrators, the
students...
It has been in the backlog now for many, many quarters.
My 2 cents,
Jonathan
HACERA
I have reviewed and where appropriate
commented the agenda items. Unfortunately I’ve had a
conflict emerge this morning so I will not be able to
attend live.
Regards,
Dan
Middleton
Principal Engineer
Intel
From: <tsc@...>
on behalf of Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 9:59 PM
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@...>,
Hyperledger TSC <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] TSC agenda
for June 25, 2020
Hi! Dave Huseby has two things he
wants to cover on elections and "showing your
support", which I felt it was worth getting in there.
There are links to each on the agenda. Meanwhile,
there are three reports to review (Burrow, Aries, and
Explorer) and those three could use more TSC members
confirming they've reviewed them by clicking the
checkbox or bringing points up for discussion.
On 6/24/20 1:21 PM, Arnaud Le Hors
wrote:
Hi
all,
I
was thinking of cancelling this week's call but
Brian informing me that he has something he wants us
to discuss and wants to have the call.
I've
been waiting for what it is but he's been busy and I
still don't know so... I leave it to Brian to update
the agenda or make it a surprise on the call. :-)
The
agenda is on the wiki:
https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/TSC/2020-06-25+TSC+Agenda
If
there is anything else you'd like to discuss or
announce please, add it to the agenda as well (or
make it a surprise too. ;-)
Please,
note that several quarterly reports were submitted
and needs to be reviewed.
Thanks.
--
Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member,
Blockchain & Web Open Technologies - IBM
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
|
