What happened to hiring an architect?
disasterlistmanager at gmail.com
Fri Dec 16 15:38:38 UTC 2016
On 12/16/2016 9:11 AM, Robert Kaiser <kairo at kairo.at> wrote:
> If you develop software yourself, you quickly find out that this is how software dies. It becomes unmaintainable or just doesn't adapt to the changing world around it and is superseded by younger software that doesn't come with that ballast from the past.
Much - I believe the bulk of (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) of
the work currently done by the TB devs is just keeping up with the
changes being forced by Mozilla/Firefox.
If we fork/freeze those moving parts, those resources could then be
applied to working on modernizing the core code.
> And Thunderbird is IMHO way along that path, and will need to change significnatly (even in user interactions) if it is to actually survive.
I mostly disagree. I am very happy with TB overall, and so are most of
the people I work with who use TB.
Admittedly there are a number of minor UI changes I'd like to see
happen, enhancements I'd like to see implemented (mostly to do with
IMAP), and bugs that I'd love to see fixed. The problem is many of of
these are apparently difficult without rewriting parts of the core code,
which apparently would require significant resources.
This is the only reason that a rewrite is important - again, in my opinion.
This is not to say I'm against modernization, I'm just saying, if the
job is too big for the resources we have, lets focus on what can be
done, get a stable environment ready for the foreseeable (next 3 to 5
years) future, then focus on Kents plans to increase resources at our
disposal, and start working on the pieces most in need of rewriting, one
at a time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tb-planning