[OSGeo-Discuss] Small projects
dbrookshier at collab.net
Sat Mar 4 06:02:42 PST 2006
On a lot of sites we use 'category' which is a special project type
to group group projects. This lets you aggregate a group of related
projects and put a little organization around them.
On Mar 4, 2006, at 4:03 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Chris Holmes wrote:
>> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>> Ari Jolma wrote:
>>>> Is there any idea in promoting projects, which develop small,
>>>> well-defined, interoperable tools? Is my impression correct that
>>>> process that's been thought of for projects to join the
>>>> foundation is a
>>>> bit heavy and perhaps not suitable for small projects? I believe
>>>> promoting interoperability is one of the foundations aims.
>>> I have been asking myself this question too. The "Project"
>>> requiring a PSC, an incubation period, committer agreements, web
>>> and so forth seems pretty heavy. So, I am doubtful that it would be
>>> appropriate to handle more modest sized project that way. I
>>> have been
>>> asking myself a similar question about things like libtiff,
>>> PROJ.4, MITAB, AVCE00 and Shapelib. My conclusion so far is that
>>> might be better handled as a sub-project of an existing major
>>> (such as GDAL for the above file translators). I am assuming
>>> that a
>>> sub-project would not need a PSC, but would be subject to the PSC of
>>> the project it is part of and mostly would just act as a part of
>>> project as far as the foundation is concerned.
>> I've been thinking about this approach as well. Apache definitely
>> works that way, with db and jakarta. And I think would work well
>> for some of the sub-projects of the more established communities.
>> It also might make sense to have a 'front end' project, that
>> groups together mapbender and mapbuilder, and other lighterweight
>> web clients could also go in to that group. Not that they
>> wouldn't each have their own PSC, but such a grouping might be
>> nice. Something like quickWMS could live in that group without a
>> PSC, for example.
> What I like about the Apache style is that the look for projects
> which will grow and will be supported when the author or sponsoring
> company looses interest.
> So for all projects, I'd be looking to find a community who will
> continue to maintain the project when the author(s) move on. In
> the case of a library, the projects which use the library are
> likely to take over the maintainance of that project. In this case
> the library could be bundled with the project which uses it.
> However, I don't think it makes sence to bundle similar projects
> unless they share each other's code. Eg, quickWMS shouldn't be
> bundled with Mapbuilder just because they do the same sort of
> thing. If the author(s) of quickWMS looses interest, Mapbuilder
> developers are probably not going to take over the development of
> quickWMS. (They will be more interested in the Mapbuilder code).
> Cameron Shorter
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe at mail.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at mail.osgeo.org
More information about the Discuss