[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Savannah-hackers] Re: about savannah-hackers
From: |
Masayuki Hatta |
Subject: |
[Savannah-hackers] Re: about savannah-hackers |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:19:00 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.5.8 (Smooth) WEMIKO/1.14.0 (Zoomastigophora) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 MULE XEmacs/21.2 (beta45) (Thelxepeia) (i386-debian-linux) |
Hi,
>>>>> In <address@hidden>
>>>>> Loic Dachary <address@hidden> wrote:
Loic> > your modifications for Savannah) not enough? Anywise SF 2.5 has (at
Loic> > least a kind of) I18N stuff and even seems to have the theme faculty
Loic> SF-2.5 has a very limited i18n (no templates for instance). Sure it's
Loic> good to be able to translate menu entries but that's about 5% you need
Loic> to translate the whole web site.
Loic> > which possibly we can use for Savannah. I think if you even think
Loic> > about "a complete rewrite" of Savannah, it would be much easier to
Loic> > adapt achievements from the SourceForge crew. I guess they got more
Loic> Believe me I spent an enormous amount of time trying to do this, back
Loic> to SourceForge-1.0.4. The SF is *not* meant to be upgradable. A complete
Loic> rewrite would be less painful. Of course if you think of re-implementing
Loic> all features SF has, it's out of question. But when you think about it
Loic> SF has few original features. What it brings to us is : "everything
Loic> automated to the max" and a consistent interface for various things. The
Loic> bug tracking thing for instance should really be GNATS, the forum thing
Loic> should be an existing php forum software, not a re-implementation, the
Loic> skills and job section should be a job board software. All these exists
Loic> and a complete rewrite would mean to re-implement the core features
Loic> (authentication, interface) and bind to other software for other features.
Hmm okay, now I understand the situation. Seems we'll need to
re-write the Savannah core anyway...are you already working on it?
The idea of using GNATS sounds pretty nice, BTW.
Loic> > resources(I mean users, developers, money, etc.) than us so why don't
Loic> > we make use of 'em! ;-) If 2.5 is not stable enough, we should help
Loic> > them to debug it, don't we? Or do you want to make the Savannah code
Loic> > fork from the original? If so I strongly object to it since in most
Loic> > cases forking is just a waste of man power (Eg. Emacs/XEmacs whirl).
Loic> I went as far as to actually go to see them (I'm in France) and try
Loic> to convince them that we should all develop that cooperatively. They have
Loic> no interest into this because it slows down things as far as they are
Loic> concerned. I spent entire weeks trying to avoid the fork and was *very*
Loic> sad when I had to give up the idea to work with the SF team. Check
Loic> http://slashdot.org/articles/00/05/09/0853201.shtml for more background
Loic> on this.
That's too bad.
Best regards,
--
Masayuki Hatta
University of Tokyo
address@hidden
address@hidden / address@hidden / address@hidden