Talk:Jenkins (software)

As with the earlier

As with the earlier Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foswiki article, this fork/rename is probably not notable enough in its own right yet to warrant its own page.

The Jekins project was created by a community vote of Hudson project members. The vote returned 90%+ in favour of the change. Oracle have refused to join the new board of Jenkins, thus it looks likely that two projects will now exist independently. Since Jenkins appears to have majority comunity support (based on the vote), it is reasonable to assume it will continue. I'd suggest a deletion/merge review in three months time. --jodastephen (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If Jenkins is a pure rename, shouldn't Hudson (software) redirect here with a mention of an Oracle fork with the old name? The official software is the notable one, the fork has yet to earn any notability and should not be its own page. 84.249.65.208 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It does really depend on whether one regards it as a "fork" or "rename". A 90% vote is pretty clear. The notability reasonably follows the community. Note that in the case of the Ethereal/Wireshark rename Wikipedia clearly went with the renamed project. So it becomes an interesting question: at what point of minority complaint does a project cease to be a renaming and invite sufficient controversy that the new name is regarded as a fundamentally new effort, and thus has to prove notability on its own? In the case of trademark-motivated renames, including the TWiki/Foswiki case, the Ethereal/Wireshark case, the Mambo/Joomla! case, and now Hudson/Jenkins, it is worth considering the question. There will be more! I would suggest that one possibility of a fair and balanced perspective is the simple test: was the new name advanced by a minority or majority group. Where the majority has moved, it generally is for an external reason not chosen by them, principally trademark. 74.79.147.25 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that a dispute like this is tricky. My best-guess analysis is that Oracle will continue to develop Hudson, and Koshuke and others will develop Jenkins. But which will 'win' is far from certain (the "notability reasonably follows the community" argument isn't conclusive in this case IMO). This is similar to OpenOffice/LibreOffice and OpenSolaris/Illumos etc. Since it is certainly not a pure uncontested rename, the only sensible course of action is to retain both pages for now. --jodastephen (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that retaining both pages is the sensible course for now. Given what is apparently the overwhelming code contributions by KK (note, I am neither a developer nor a user of this software, but I can read commit statistics) it is quite clear the Jenkins rename will continue so long as KK spends his time on it. Similarly, the Oracle fork is likely to remain while Oracle thinks it can benefit its cash flow, either directly or indirectly, from the maintenance. As MIT-licensed software, code is likely to flow to some extent, though Oracle's unwillingness to accept code without source code rights assignment will undoubtedly slow the process if they maintain that hurdle. What I cannot see happening, however, is any substantial feature development on the Oracle side. But Wikipedia is not a place for astrology: that will be determined of its own accord and in the fullness of time. 132.236.6.98 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm undecided on this. As long as the projects are nearly identical apart from name, maintaining one page instead of two would certainly be easier, and both articles are in need of some tightening. henrik•talk 19:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that a content fork that has resulted in two different names for software that is otherwise nearly identical has led to a content fork here that has again resulted in two different names for articles that are otherwise nearly identical? But I think that, until such time as there is some significant difference in the material that should be in the two articles, they should be merged into a single article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think they should be two articles, until it becomes clear that hudson is no longer actively developed (if that happens). 109.231.237.58 (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

yes it happens