[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnewsense-dev] Re: [gNewSense-users] Webapps infrastructure

From: Karl Goetz
Subject: Re: [Gnewsense-dev] Re: [gNewSense-users] Webapps infrastructure
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:10:53 +0930

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:36:24 -0400
Daniel Clark <address@hidden> wrote:

> Karl Goetz wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:38:23 +0200
> > Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> >> Sam Geeraerts <address@hidden> writes:
> >> I really do like redmine more than trac, though, but I wish it
> >> wasn't implemented in ruby.  Especially multi-projects is
> >> difficult with trac, or at least that was my experience when I
> >> tried.
> > 
> > This is mentioned about track a lot :( Hopefully someones working
> > on it. kk
> Lots of people are, although I'm not sure it would be necessary if
> gNewSense choose to move to it (since I am, perhaps densely, missing
> the need for separate wikis / ticket tracking systems / codebases -
> what is there other than builder?)

Currently, we have the following 'sections' in the BTS:
- mips-l
- main
- universe
- livecd
- website
- builder
- general

Some may be redundant, but at least distro/builder/website/general
would be nice.
Not sure if we would need to have new tracs for each of these, or if
trac could handle them as sub projects somehow (I havent had time to
setup trac here for testing yet)

> In working on the list of trac-based
> multi-project projects that seemed usable I came across was:
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> Of these I'd recommend kforge (5), and have the most experience with
> ClueMapper (1).


> I have experience with stand-alone trac installs (my personal one I'm
> migrating to fossil-scm because it doesn't need to be pretty and has
> basic needs, but is trac and going to stay that
> way for the foreseeable future), and would be happy to act in an
> advisory / feel free to bug me for any nifty configuration you see on
> advisory role for a gNewSense trac instance.

Ack. Thanks.

> Which brings up the point, I think the question people should be
> asking isn't "what's the best web infrastructure for gnewsense" but
> "what's the best web infrastructure for gnewsense given the people
> with skills willing to spend serious bring-up and continual
> maintenance time on it".

Agreed, supporting it will play a big part.

> My sense was that pmwiki was chosen because Brian and perhaps others
> had relatively deep perl knowledge, and that helped them do some


> custom stuff. I just don't want the project to get in a situation
> where a majority of people who chime in agree that baz is the way to
> go, but the people who set up and maintain the current foo don't know
> how to use baz / don't have an interest in baz.

Yes, its something I'm taking into consideration. It would also be fair
to say until ~2.x there was very little community input into the
website maintenance, or even interest in it.
I think we're in much better shape at the moment, and I'm hoping it
stays this level, or even improves.


Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian user / gNewSense contributor
No, I won't join your social networking group

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]