2015-05-16 19:23:20 UTC
(1) Two OW repositories are being actively developed: Jiri Malak's "open-watcom-v2" repository on GitHub, and the "official" OW 1.9 Perforce repository, hosted on a server provided by Perforce. Other OW repositories exist whose level of activity is not known to me.
(2) Jiri Malak is adding 64 bit functionality using a methodology that is perceived by the 1.9 contributors as risky and without an adequate QA/QC process. In turn, the 1.9 contributors are producing occasional bug fixes and isolate enhancements, using a methodology that is perceived by the 2.0 contributors (Malak and company) as cumbersome and ill suited to open source development with extremely limited manpower.
(3) The two development/maintenance efforts disagree about method, not about vision.
IMO, there is merit to the views of both contributor groups. IMO, what is needed is a QA/QC "department" external to both efforts, that focuses on (1) doing or coordinating testing, (2) emitting "pull requests" to encourage bug fixes to be accepted by both efforts, and (3) encouraging integration of each enhancement produced by one group into the sources of the other group.
In order to try this out, I contemplate mirroring the 1.9 Perforce repo to GitHub and also mirroring Jiri's 2.0 repo. Both mirrors would be owned by the "IdeaFarm (tm) Operations" organization on GitHub, which would serve as the QA/QC department. This QA/QC department would have a passive bug fixing role and would encourage (1) acceptance of bug fixes and enhancements by all competing development repos, and (2) preservation and development of both/all competing development visions.
End users would be able to go to a single place on GitHub to obtain binaries and sources for all variants of OW. Contributors who use Perforce would be able to continue to do so. Contributors who want to use GitHub but who prefer to contribute to the 1.9 effort rather than to Jiri's 2.0 effort would be able to do so.