I don't know if I've any pull in voting, but +1 for github from me. It also would help in cases when a Wicket-Stuff idea may want to fork Wicket core to try new stuff.
-Clint On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com>wrote: > +1 for github > > biggest drag on managing wicketstuff is the high price for > accepting/applying/submitting patches; at github it is almost > non-existant since anyone can raise a pull request and they are > trivial to apply. > > -igor > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Martijn Dashorst > <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Things change and while we had a nice stay at sf.net, I think it is > > time to move on with Wicket Stuff to newer ground. We have had this > > discussion before and the discussion stalled mostly because Apache and > > Google were in talks about a new service called Apache Extras [1]. > > Fortunately those talks are now over and we can continue our future of > > Wicket Stuff hosting discussion. > > > > In my opinion there are two possible hosting solutions for Wicket Stuff: > > > > - the newly announced Apache Extras > > - github's organization feature > > > > For Wicket Stuff we have a couple of things that worked fairly badly > > in the past. SVN connectivity from our build system connecting to > > SF.net was spotty at best, and didn't work most of the time. This has > > improved considerably by using Hudson instead of Teamcity (though not > > all builds that were done on teamcity have been migrated to hudson) > > > > I declare the JIRA instance of wicket stuff officially dead and gone > > to meet its maker. While we could opt for another JIRA enterprise > > license, I find maintaining the service a chore, and having to upgrade > > every now and then a waste of time better used to build cool stuff. > > While the issue trackers of Apache Extras (i.e. google code) and > > github are barebones, they have enough features to work with—we're not > > building missile guidance software requiring CMM level 5, SAS-71 etc > > certification. > > > > A similar issue arises with confluence. While I appreciate confluence > > being the best wiki available, again maintaining and upgrading it is > > no picnic, and both Apache Extras and github provide fine > > implementations of wikis. > > > > So I'd like to propose the following options: > > > > - stay at sf.net but use the sf.net hosted issue tracker and wikis > > - move everything over to an Apache Extras Wicket Stuff project > > - move everything over to a Github Wicket Stuff organization > > > > Staying at sf.net > > > > - scm options: SVN, Git, Mercurial, Bazaar, or CVS > > - no social options > > - No Apache Extras brand name > > - account management a drag > > - no limitation on allowed open source licenses > > - web UI a complete travesty > > > > Moving to Apache Extras > > > > - scm options: HG and SVN > > - no social options > > - Apache Extras brand name > > - account management a drag > > - limitation on allowed open source licenses > > > > Moving to Github > > > > - scm options: git > > - many social options (easy forking/merging/pull requests, etc) > > - No Apache Extras exposure > > - account management possibly easier (less need to actually add > > accounts to projects for sure) > > - no limitation on allowed open source licenses > > > > For this exercise I assumed the wiki and issue trackers of both github > > and Apache Extras are equally barebones. > > > > What do you think? If I've missed something add to this thread. If you > > prefer one solution over the other speak up! > > > > Martijn > > > > [1] > https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_launches > > >
