[Geomoose-users] Welcome to OSGeo incubation

[Dan Little]

I agree, and pending getting infrastructure from OSGeo (I've bumped our ticket monthly) we are doing ad hoc things.  Not super-mature looking but it seems we've been in constant transition for issue tracking.



>________________________________
> From: Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>
>To: Dan Little <danlittle at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>; Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>; Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>; "geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org" <geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org> 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:18 AM
>Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] Welcome to OSGeo incubation
> 
>
>This is also a place where OSGeo can help us.  Using the OSGeo trac instead of our own instance of trac allows us to take advantage of the common OSGeo logins.  Thus lowering the barrier to contributing (many people already have OSGeo logins) to the trac while still not allowing a free for all or forcing us to spend all our time managing user accounts and keeping track of who is real and who is a spam bot.
>
>On Nov 30, 2011, at 8:50, Dan Little <danlittle at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>IMO, we do need some improvement in code-accountability.  We setup trac to open up to the world, then locked it down when we discovered the world was mostly spam.
>>
>>
>>In our last PSC meeting we decided to create a working list for 2.6 in Trac.  While it doesn't have real accountability or systematic feedback, it at least makes a list, is this a reasonably satisfactory start?  I would intend to include the "*" stating we are going to implement Trac once some of the coding issues clear.
>>
>>
>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
>>>To: Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> 
>>>Cc: geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org; Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> 
>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:21 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] Welcome to OSGeo incubation
>>> 
>>>
>>>Previously done, although in an admittedly much inferior wording,
>>>>http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoMoose_Incubation_Status#Infrastructure_Transition
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Open for all to edit...
>>>Looks pretty good; it tells me where the code is - wish I could click through to the issue tracker link.
>>>
>>>
>>>As an aside when you do your providence (i.e. code review) - you don't have to actually fix things - only list them in your issue tracker.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is important for prospective contributors to know what the issues are; they can always pay you to fix them if they care. The real danger is the unknown issues; which is what the providence review is designed to get a handle on.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Jody
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Geomoose-users mailing list
>>>Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
>>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>>>
>>>
>>>
>_______________________________________________
>>Geomoose-users mailing list
>>Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20111130/96e905d4/attachment.html