[pgrouting-dev] Re: State of OSGeo migration

[Daniel Kastl]

Hi PSC,

Just wonderig if

a) this email didn't make it to the developer list, or
b) was too long and/or too difficult to understand.
c) ... or just everyone on vacation at the moment? ;-)

Otherwise I would be glad to hear some feedback or even just a +1 or -1.

Thank you,
Daniel


2010/7/27 Daniel Kastl <daniel at georepublic.de>

> Hi PSC,
>
> Many weeks have passed since we decided to migrate to OSGeo environment as
> described here:
> http://pgrouting.postlbs.org/wiki/RFC/02
> Sorry for not giving any updates on the migration progress.
>
> The beginning was very promising and I thought it won't take a week to have
> everything moved to OSGeo servers. But then it got stuck with SVN and nobody
> of the OSGeo administrators was willing or able to import the SVN dump nor
> giving any clear answer to my emails on the mailing list. You can find
> emails and tickets in SAC TRAC and mailing list archives.
>
> What could be achieved so far:
>
>    - user mailing list migrated to OSGeo servers
>    - dev mailing list created on OSGeo server
>    - download directory created under http://download.osgeo.org/pgrouting/
>
> Everything went quick but SVN migration became frustrating and I started to
> think if it's really a good idea to use OSGeo servers if the OSGeo
> administrators seem to be a bit too much busy. They are all volunteers, so I
> appreciate their work. But there were a couple of issues with the servers
> the last weeks, so I started to look for alternatives:
>
>    - SUBVERSION alternative:
>    Recently a lot of projects use distributed version control systems like
>    Git, Mercurial or Bazaar. Especially Git seems to become more and more
>    popular. Just a few weeks ago OpenLayers started to work on version 3 using
>    Github for example.
>    In my opinion a move to Git would make participation of developers
>    without commit access easier. It would allow others to make use of version
>    control without losing versioning information, so it would allow us to bring
>    changes from other projects back into the main project. You see, I'm still
>    hoping for contributions ;-)
>
>    - FORUM alternative:
>    The forum is a problem in my opinion. First it's missing notification,
>    second it's more or less Anton and me answering 99% of the questions, and
>    third it attracts a lot of spam, which I'm tired to delete. Spam filters
>    don't work. On the other hand it's a lot more popular than the mailing list,
>    so we would probably take a away a popular resource for pgRouting users. It
>    seems the entry level to ask in a forum is a lot lower than to signup for
>    the mailing list.
>    So my idea would be something like "Stackoverflow". There is an open
>    source alternative called "Shapado", which you can install on your own
>    server, but also use a hosted installation. At the moment I would prefer the
>    latter, and to see how it looks like I setup this for testing:
>    http://ask.pgrouting.org/
>
>    - TRAC WIKI alternative:
>    The number of TRAC users is probably already several thousand ... 99%
>    spam accounts though. You can't delete them anymore through the web
>    interface, because user management with TRAC sucks. On the other hand, there
>    are just a few people editing the TRAC wiki, so I don't think a wiki is
>    really necessary. People tend to write their recipes in their own blog
>    anyway.
>    I would propose to use Sphinx documentation generation to produce
>    static HTML and PDF as so many other OSGeo projects do now. My experience
>    with Sphinx is very good since I wrote the FOSS4G workshop manual with it,
>    and also the pgRouting chapters of the next LiveDVD documentationt. We can
>    keep the website documents under version control and make it accessible
>    under pgrouting.org domain (there is no problem to host it on the
>    Georepublic server from my side).
>
>    - TRAC TICKETS alternative:
>    Probably it would be easiest to use the Github ticketing system if we
>    decide to use Github.
>
> If you have any comments, please let eevryone know.
> Otherwise I would be interested to know who agrees or disagrees with this
> change of RFC 2.
> If everyone agrees I will change RFC 2 (or make RFC 3) and proceed like
> described above.
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
> --
> Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
> eMail: daniel.kastl at georepublic.de
> Web: http://georepublic.de
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pgrouting-dev/attachments/20100728/83cea967/attachment.html