[Incubator] Incubation Progress Page

[Frank Warmerdam]

Daniel Brookshier wrote:
> Sorry, I like to slap my paint with bright colors. It is however a clear 
> advantage to use a common set of tools.

Daniel,

LOL, I like that.  "Slap my paint with bright colors."

Yes, there are clear advantages to using common tools.

> This is indeed an issue that we are constantly battling at CollabNet. 
> Migration is never easy. MapGuide had a similar problem with migrating 
> their bug database. In the end they are only migrating the open issues. 
> I wish there was a clean import method, but the CollabNet platform is 
> not oriented at consuming old information - it is not cost effective to 
> support all the possible bug trackers and their many versions.
> 
> The good news is that the pain of it is fixed. Once you get over the 
> hump, it is smooth sailing.

Well, the pain is finite assuming we stay with the collabnet platform in
the long term.  While that is a desirable outcome, it is not exactly a
forgone conclusion.  I for one, am leery about making a huge migration
commitment when I know that next year I might need to migrate back off
again if the platform contract is not renewed.

>> PS. I don't see any reason why code would need to be in an OSGeo SVN
>> tree to be considered valid for our purposes.
> 
> Agreed, but in what legal context? If the foundation is taking 
> responsibility it has no weight with a project hosted off site. If it is 
> on site and their is a legal need to put a project into a private mode, 
> we have that option. 

That is an interesting point.  That, for instance if there is a code
contamination problem we could temporarily close a project if it is on
the CN platform.  On the other hand, I'm a bit leery about the impact
on my GDAL clients if someone else can just "close" my repository at
will.

 > If it is off site we can not do that. As you say,
> there is also dilution of brand, but I also argue dilution of resources. 

Well, the resources wasted are those to maintain the external setups.
Once setup that is small, and they are already setup.

> We have to draw the line legally and in some area of status based on the 
> reach both of the project and the foundation. You have to be standing 
> completely under the umbrella to be protected from the rain.
 >
> Again, more here is better in the long run. Agreed we can't force it. 
> There are however things to think about. We should promote the complete 
> absorption path over others and have a few concrete reasons to do so. 
> The legal implications of a partial move, or even just simple member 
> project in name only, should be considered.

Well, we do need to consider this. We certainly need to work out what it
means for a project to be a "foundation project".

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGF, http://osgeo.org