@gomezz I agree, but it seems that the moderators feel like it is a second rate feature and want to take they’re time to get it implemented (most of the current issues were brought up years ago).
I’m offering to help the implement it, but they are slow to respond and seem to want to get the UI/UX perfect before even beginning.
Hi @dunc0, thanks for joining the AP forum and being an active participant.
I’m glad you share the my enthusiasm and urgency to improve AP that I feel is lacking in the rest of community as of late.
I appreciate an respect any user that takes the time to suggest ways of improving an app. And so regardless if the idea is any good I do try to accomadate their suggestions as much as possible. Which I can’t always as not all are good.
Luckly, your suggestion is one of the good ones.
I also am nearly a pure streamer. I hardly use the queue or downloads. And one my own personal complaints against AP is their lack of continus playback from the playlist of a feed. It is only supported in the queue.
As much as I would like to help you with your concers, I don’t think it will get into AP any time soon. I’ve been working on other features and they have been very slow in their responses, which they seem to have a history of.
Therefore, I have been considering forking this project and going my own way. I wish it didn’t have to come to this but, my enthusiam to make AP better and help give users the voice they deserve has grown to much.
I’m not sure what to name it. Do you have any suggestions?
Hi @gomezz,
Yes, I agree that download management is still important. That is why I volunteered to help get this feature shipped. But the maintainers have been slow at responding.
That is why I have decided to fork AP. If this fork is successful, then I can help accommodate and improve the download feature and have it shipped within a reasonable deadline.
Any name suggestions?
@peakvalleytech instead of forking is there a way to do something like an experimental branch where it would be possible to let you manage it ?
So it could include edge features and available to advanced users. Then based on it big features could be polished before being merged to main branch?
@ByteHamster what do you think, is it possible if it would satisfy @peakvalleytech ? Or it is better that a forked version exists ?
1 Like
That is the great thing about open source, forking and building out your own brand, app name and your own user community and forum support.
I am not sure if this forum has rules about using the forum server to talk about forked projects. @keunes
I’m sorry for not being more active reviewing recently. I have quite a few things going on in real-life currently, that’s why I have limited time working on AntennaPod. Even though I still spend about 8 hours a week on AntennaPod, it should probably be more (maybe 10-15 like it was a few months ago). The largest problem probably is that I am the only one reviewing PRs. If there would be more developers leaving comments about the code structure, I would have more time to think about new features.
I’m reviewing one of your PRs at a time, starting with the oldest one. You are working on quite a few “large” issues (at the same time), so it takes a while to review. Over the past years, I have invested quite a lot of time to untangle spaghetti code, which is why I am rather picky with large PRs and their code structure.
I would prefer to not discuss forks on the official forum. This just leads to confusion when users cannot be sure what features are available in what app.
Having branches to polish features is already the workflow we use. The branches are on peakvalleytech’s repo, though, because giving access to individual branches is not supported by GitHub.
With two apps, a lot of the “external” tasks (managing a forum, social media, releases, translations, website etc) is twice the amount of work (in total). I would encourage you to keep working on AntennaPod instead of forking. We all have the same goal - making the podcast experience better for users - and working together instead of alone will help to achieve that.
1 Like
I’m fully aware that discussing the forking of AP does not belong in this community. But I believe it is relevant to this discussion.
Well, giving me a heads up before hand would be great. Otherwise, it just seems like my work is just being ignored and unappreciated.
@Matth78 @keunes @ByteHamster
I have decided on this solution.
- I will fork AP as an independent project.
- I will continue to contribute to AP
My main problem is the speed of development. I respect that the maintainers devote as much time as they want to. But it is just not satisfactory to me. I do not want to have to be tied to someone else’s schedule. At the same time, I agree that the goal is to improve AP. With this solution, I can develop on my own terms while still helping to improve AP (on the maintainers terms).
In another thread it seems @peakvalleytech was hoping for comments to this post.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding here due to different understandings of the term fork and the consequences of creating one? A classical understanding of the word might contain elements of burning all bridges and stopping co-operation with the forked project. This is obviously not what was suggested, given point two immediately following the suggestion.
Given the following quote, it seems to me that a fork is suggested for the purpose of aiding the discussion with reviewable code. A possibly younger interpretation of fork from the GitHub era, where forking is simply the uncoordinated approach allowing to throwing stuff on the wall to see if it sticks.
Please compare this with the following suggestion:
I believe there is common ground to be found here. My understanding is that @Matth78 is actually suggesting something with closer integration to the project than the unsanctioned clone that @peakvalleytech could already create at any time. Both sides seems to believe the conversation has gone on enough to require more concrete input in order to progress, but there is a difference of culture and approach? Would reviewable and discardable prototype code be welcome?
I cannot argue with that. However, I believe in the younger interpretation as a grew up with Github era.
Therefore, I don’t see how the compromise I proposed is not viable.
No, you’ve just quoted me out of context. I have no plans to merge whatever i’ve written for my fork into AP. If you would like to use the code from my fork, do so at your own peril. Alternatively, like I said, I can continue to contribute to AP, and can help implement similar code that as been agreed upon by the community. I’m am all happy to continue to improve AP.
However, abiding by open-source protocol, I still have the right to fork maintain my own fork.
It is open source. How is it ‘unsanctioned’?
I never claimed you didn’t. Maybe you should reread my entire post when you’re having a good enough day to realize it was an attempt to help?
Please don’t expect any further posts from me in dead threads.
No need to reread. You in fact made such a claim. Clear as day.
FYI illegal is a synonym of unsanctioned. I would never have mentioned it if you were to have omit the word. Calling a fork unsanctioned does not help at all.
No worries. I’m not too keen to discuss matters not related to the original topic anyways. So if you don’t have anything to say about the auto download feature than please don’t posts here.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.