On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:16 AM Gerald B. Cox <gbcox@bzb.us> wrote:
>
> Again, I believe some are trying to do an apples to apples comparison with Discourse and mailing list technologies. Discourse was build from the ground up with the goal of fostering communication and collaboration. Hyperkitty is a bolt on HTML to mailing list archives. It's good for what it is, but it isn't Discourse - and usage numbers tend to bear that out.
>
That's an unfair characterization. HyperKitty was designed from the
ground up with that goal in mind too. The _sole_ difference is the
backend approach. Discourse uses a database system while HyperKitty
uses a mail list engine.
if you think the "sole" difference between HyperKitty and Discourse is the backend approach
you're not looking very hard. It's quite apparent just by looking at it. If yperKitty's design goals
are the exact same as Discourse they hid it pretty well in their online documentation.
You know why the usage numbers bear that out? Because the upgrade to
HyperKitty was mishandled and delayed over and over. We were screwed
over by the fact that our infrastructure doesn't run on Fedora, so
that made it harder to get it working. The initial deployment was very
slow and unoptimized. Bugs in the UI remained unfixed in Fedora's
installation even though upstream fixed them. I would not be surprised
if upstream ignores us because we don't seem to be upgrading.
I don't agree with that being the reason - I believe it is the design approach and goals - but
even if that were true - that ship has sailed.
The development process for HyperKitty basically stalled out because
migrations were impossible from Mailman 2 to Mailman 3 for a *very*
long time. Fedora somehow did it, and that seemed to have not gone
back upstream, so until *very recently*, upstream did not recommend
doing mm2 to mm3 upgrades.
This thread isn't about making excuses for Hyperkitty - it's about Discourse.