[OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal to find an alternative to Collabnet

[Allan Doyle]

Apologies for dead horse beating and circularity. I was under the  
impression that the Geoserver project was concerned with having to  
fit into Collabnet. If it's a dead horse, then they may not have  
known that.

I'm not trying to discuss this for any reason other than the fact  
that the horse seemed to be twitching... maybe it's from us all  
running around it in circles.

	Allan

On Jul 17, 2006, at 19:13, Gary Lang wrote:

> Allan,
>
> "Is it so important to move things to a common environment for
> developers?"
>
> I didn't think this was a discussion about moving. I thought we were
> talking about new projects that don't already have an infrastructure
> using CN. We already beat the moving current projects horse to death
> already. There's no need for a project that has a home now to move to
> CN, I think we've all said.
>
> " Is it so important to move things to a common environment for
> developers? Is the cost of doing that so high that it starts to cut  
> into
> development?"
>
> No it isn't, but also a dead horse. For new projects, it doesn't cut
> into development.
>
> You can all choose to believe me or not. I have said that the CN site,
> for all its faults, was incredibly easy for MapGuide to be placed  
> onto,
> the SCC works, our migration from Perforce was simple, we're up, we  
> get
> hits, we handle downloads - lots of them, we get news out, etc.
>
> We spend zero time monitoring it, running it, etc. We spend our time
> developing MapGuide and working with our community, which is exactly
> what we should be doing.
>
> So it is working for us as an infratructure site. And this seems  
> like a
> big benefit for new projects that don't have an infrastructure.  
> What am
> I missing?
>
> Rather than beat these dead horses, I'd rather we simply let the web
> committee do their thing and create a project for moving the site in
> February but in the meantime we get on with the foundation's business
> which means taking as much of the overhead of running a project off of
> developer's hands as is possible until then, promoting their work,  
> etc.
>
> If this is developed before February even better. But telling  
> people not
> to use the infrastructure now and spending endless cycles talking  
> about
> what we already agreed on - i.e. CN is not working well in general  
> - is
> not furthering the foundation's charter.
>
> If a project doesn't feel in a rush to do anything and wants to wait,
> it's their prerogative, of course.
>
> So does the WebCom have a timeline for making a decision, setting this
> up, etc? If I don't see one by October there will be yet another  
> project
> setting up yet another site by next February, I can tell you that.
> MapGuide isn't about to be homeless. We like hobu's Plone site for
> MapServer quite a bit, and will start our discussion around that if we
> don't see some progress by OSGeo by October.
>
> I worry about these discussions - which feel circular to me -  
> because I
> fear that we will go down in history as the foundation that discussed
> content management infrastructure endlessly instead of doing something
> great for its projects.
>
> Gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allan Doyle [mailto:adoyle at eogeo.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 2:51 PM
> To: discuss at mail.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal to find an alternative to
> Collabnet
>
> Is it so important to move things to a common environment for
> developers? Is the cost of doing that so high that it starts to cut  
> into
> development?
>
> Jody's point about matching look and feel sounds like the more  
> important
> one. If we work backwards, what end result are we looking for? Surely
> not carefully lined up projects, all neatly tucked away into a version
> control system with parallel file naming conventions, variable naming
> schemes and so on. I'd like to see compatible binary packages for  
> major
> platforms, ease of side-by-side installations of components, etc.
> Basically the topics we were hitting on in the OpenSDI list.
>
> If projects do the proper copyright/IP management, then it should  
> be ok
> to use any tools to do so.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> 	Allan
>
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 17:37, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
>> Hi Cameron, thanks for keeping discussion open and on the list.
>> Much nicer out in public even when difficult.
>>
>> From my perspective I got a lot of work to do to get GeoTools ready
>> and Collabnet is the last thing on my mind. I am way more concerned
>> about what the standard Look and Feel ends up being for OSGEO
>> projects... because that I will match.
>>
>> We origionally started using Confluence for the uDig project and
>> looked into porting the content to Drupal. It really did not work and
>> i would be sorry to say how much time we spent on it. It was
>> interesting how effective donating confluence is to open source
>> projects is for Allisian....
>>
>> Thanks for quoting the following page, the tables near the bottom  
>> were
>
>> started by me to explain why GeoTools is not moving to Collabnet at
>> this time... which is not to say we are not hurting for resources (in
>> the meeting to day we were talking about hosting builds on TOPP and
>> Refractions servers).
>>> This page is a good start:
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Project_Infrastructure_Migration
>> So what I want is this:
>> 1. Web LNF from the webcomm (who I have not had a chance to help with
>> until the geotools IP check is done) 2. Update my confluence sites to
>> match 3. Keep tabs on CollabNet offerings, and how seriously
>> intergrated LnF is as a requirement for OSGEO projects
>>
>> If the times comes to switch, and it may, it will be based on the
>> least hassle for developers on the project. The performance of
>> confluence on the codehaus is a trouble, and I can no longer export
>> based on the timeouts experienced (bleck).
>>
>> One serious issue is that most of our navigation structure is  
>> based on
>
>> parent child page relationships included in pages via macros, this is
>> the kind of thing that never translates well - even if the base
>> content does. So I am really not going to give this much more thought
>> until it becomes a problem. It is nice having CollabNet as an escape
>> avenue if needed.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Jody
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe at mail.osgeo.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at mail.osgeo.org
>>
>
> --
> Allan Doyle
> +1.781.433.2695
> adoyle at eogeo.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe at mail.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at mail.osgeo.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe at mail.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at mail.osgeo.org
>

-- 
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
adoyle at eogeo.org