Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
Okay, some final things before I start flinging vote messages about: - DOAP files will, for the time being, only be possible for Apache committers putting their DOAP files into people.apache.org. This is due to a very strict firewall policy by Infrastructure, to which I agree. I will look into ways of solving this issue, so we can hopefully, at one point, have everyone using DOAP. - The old modules.a.o archive will move to modules-archive.apache.org, where it will live happily ever after, or until we decide to scrap it completely. - Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to submit their modules to this site. - We are, as always, looking for volunteers!! If you'd like to help out managing the modules.apache.org site, please do speak up. We will be possibly adding some LDAP tie-ins later, making Apache committers moderators by default, but that is for another thread to discuss in. Currently, we will be only allowing Apache committers to apply as moderators, but we will be having a discussion about that in the other thread I'll start. - As said, I will be posting two threads, one voting thread and one discussion thread about feature requests and such for the site. That is all - at sunrise, look to the east...or look to the mailing list (tilt your screen to the west, please, it makes for a more dramatic entrance) With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 25.01.13 5:24 , Daniel Gruno wrote: - Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to submit their modules to this site. I know, I don't have the right to vote, but I still would like to know, why you don't migrate the 'old' data to the new site? If you want to get rid of unmaintained modules this is one thing, but there might be modules on the old site that are still valid despite the fact that they haven't been touched within the last 2 years. With the 'old' data, you can at least populate all fields (except the long description). - We are, as always, looking for volunteers!! If you'd like to help out managing the modules.apache.org site, please do speak up. We will be possibly adding some LDAP tie-ins later, making Apache committers moderators by default, but that is for another thread to discuss in. Currently, we will be only allowing Apache committers to apply as moderators, but we will be having a discussion about that in the other thread I'll start. Ok, what does 'managing' the site mean? How many hours do you have to put in per week/month (just a ballpark)? I'd be interested. Cheers. -- regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek lookup http://sks.pkqs.net for KeyID 0xC11F128D /* Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for chaos and madness await thee at its end. */
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/25/2013 11:39 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote: On 25.01.13 5:24 , Daniel Gruno wrote: - Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to submit their modules to this site. I know, I don't have the right to vote, but I still would like to know, why you don't migrate the 'old' data to the new site? If you want to get rid of unmaintained modules this is one thing, but there might be modules on the old site that are still valid despite the fact that they haven't been touched within the last 2 years. With the 'old' data, you can at least populate all fields (except the long description). - We are, as always, looking for volunteers!! If you'd like to help out managing the modules.apache.org site, please do speak up. We will be possibly adding some LDAP tie-ins later, making Apache committers moderators by default, but that is for another thread to discuss in. Currently, we will be only allowing Apache committers to apply as moderators, but we will be having a discussion about that in the other thread I'll start. Ok, what does 'managing' the site mean? How many hours do you have to put in per week/month (just a ballpark)? I'd be interested. Cheers. The old data is simply incompatible with the new system, and we have no way of knowing which modules still exist except to to through them all manually (mind you, this is a lot of records) and check. The new system is based on a lot more parameters (such as tags, multiple release versions, short and long descriptions, detailed author profiles, component entries etc), which would throw every module from the old site into a muddied miscellaneous category from which there would be no escape, unless each author manually updated the records, which is unlikely for the majority of the modules. Furthermore, we cannot migrate the old userbase, as it's incompatible and severely outdated in terms of security (I will not go into specifics, you will have to trust me on this one), so the modules would not be able to be coupled with an author, and thus no one would have access to update them, unless we simply gave Carte Blanche to do so...which would require at least as much effort as simply creating the module on the new site. What I have proposed instead is that we contact any author who has created/updated a module within the last two years, inviting them to spend 2 minutes on the site, recreating their module information. Managing the site means approving new modules as they arrive. The process is quite simple: 1) A module is registered in the database 2) An email is sent to modules-...@httpd.apache.org 3) Site admins verify that the module is not bogus 4) You click on an 'approve' or a 'reject' button, and that's it. 5) Authors are notified of approval or rejection of the module. I'd estimate this to require between 5 minutes and half an hour per week at most, maybe a bit more in the beginning. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/25/2013 11:39 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote: On 25.01.13 5:24 , Daniel Gruno wrote: - Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to submit their modules to this site. I know, I don't have the right to vote, .. Everybody has the right to vote, but not every vote counts. We appreciate your opinion as much as the next person, and you're very welcome to vote on the issue. But I feel I must state again, that this is as much a vote about moving forward as it is a vote about specifics. The old database will remain untouched, and if at any point in time, we find a way to reintegrate the old data, we can do so if we choose. But I find if very unlikely, having looked at the internals of the old system. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:55, Daniel Gruno wrote: On 01/25/2013 11:39 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote: On 25.01.13 5:24 , Daniel Gruno wrote: - Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to submit their modules to this site. I know, I don't have the right to vote, .. Everybody has the right to vote, but not every vote counts. Rather say, every vote counts, but not every vote is binding. A vote accompanied by a reasoned argument would count even if it was your first ever contribution to this list! -- Nick Kew
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 25 Jan 2013, at 23:06, Nick Kew wrote: Rather say, every vote counts, but not every vote is binding. ... insofar as 'binding' has meaning in this context (before someone takes up that baton and replies at length). -- Nick Kew
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 25.01.13 17:51 , Daniel Gruno wrote: The old data is simply incompatible with the new system, and we have no way of knowing which modules still exist except to to through them all manually (mind you, this is a lot of records) and check. The new system Thanks for the detailed explanation. Managing the site means approving new modules as they arrive. The process is quite simple: I'd estimate this to require between 5 minutes and half an hour per week at most, maybe a bit more in the beginning. In that case I volunteer. Let me know, if I can help. Cheers, Helmut
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/23/2013 06:04 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk mailto:rum...@cord.dk wrote: If you find a bug, post it to me or on the list, whichever you think is appropriate. OK. Bug I found seems to be fixed (since about 2300 EST). When I clicked on the link to modules.lua on projects.lua, there was some error. Now it appears to be working. (and I just noticed that you sent me a message indicating that.) Several comments: - Clicking remove project should probably prompt Are you sure?. Done - It would be nice if the title would change based on the page you are on so that it is easier to use the browser's back/forward and history. Also done :) - Y Furthermore, comments have been enabled through comments.apache.org, so visitors and authors can discuss the modules on the site. I had some talks with various people about how best to transition from the old site to the new, and what we could agree on was as follows: - The new site will have a link to the old site (which will be relocated for the time being, before ultimately being scrapped at some point in the distant future, once enough modules have migrated). This means the old database will be retained for now, until we come to a decision as to what should happen with it. - Authors who have added modules to the old site will be informed of the new site and asked to please resubmit their module for approval. I am also pleased to say that the DOAP features are running smoothly, and should prove useful to those who prefer using DOAP over manually adding releases and editing their module information. Each project has a DOAp page where module authors can view their current (auto-generated) DOAP file with instructions on how to switch to DOAP, should they choose to do so. Given the response after my 'hard and fast' play, which I am pleased to say stirred things up a bit, I will let people try out the site for another few days, before I will propose a regular vote to transition to the new system. I hope people will try out every feature the new site has to offer (you can just make a fake module if you like), and view the upcoming vote as a decision to move forward, rather than whatever things could be done better with the new system. We can always improve on things, but the important thing is that we move onto a new system that provides a much better service for visitors. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 22.01.13 17:29 , Daniel Gruno wrote: works (it's actually nearly completed already, you can see it at http://modules.humbedooh.com/ - do try it out), and as such, I'd like to Looks nice. 2 comments though: 1) If you browse the modules and click on a tag, you can't reset it. You can only switch to a different/new tag, but you can't unset the tag you selected. 2) Something wrong with the search algorithm. If you search for 'nz' (w/o the quotes), you get the following result: mod_authz_dynamic mod_authnz_subrequest There is no 'nz' in 'mod_authz_dynamic'. Cheers, Helmut -- regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek lookup http://sks.pkqs.net for KeyID 0xC11F128D /* Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for chaos and madness await thee at its end. */
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/24/2013 08:11 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote: On 22.01.13 17:29 , Daniel Gruno wrote: works (it's actually nearly completed already, you can see it at http://modules.humbedooh.com/ - do try it out), and as such, I'd like to Looks nice. 2 comments though: 1) If you browse the modules and click on a tag, you can't reset it. You can only switch to a different/new tag, but you can't unset the tag you selected. 2) Something wrong with the search algorithm. If you search for 'nz' (w/o the quotes), you get the following result: mod_authz_dynamic mod_authnz_subrequest There is no 'nz' in 'mod_authz_dynamic'. Cheers, Helmut Although you could just click on 'browse modules' again, I'll take your suggestion into consideration :) Perhaps clicking the green tag button should just reset to 'no tags' As for the search, you're not just searching the module names, you're also searching the description of the modules. There appears to be a typo in the longer description of mod_authz_dynamic, erroneously claiming its name to be 'mod_authnz_dynamic', which is why it turns up when you search for 'nz' (or 'authnz'). We can discuss changing what exactly is being searched when a user enter a string, but perhaps such issues of fine tuning the engine is better put to purpose in a separate thread when the site has migrated and is free of any bugs that may be there. With regards, and thanks for your suggestion and review, Daniel.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 24.01.13 14:18 , Daniel Gruno wrote: Although you could just click on 'browse modules' again, I'll take your suggestion into consideration :) Perhaps clicking the green tag button should just reset to 'no tags' Yes, I saw that you can do that. As long as there are only a few tags, I guess just clicking on browse again will do. Also, in browse you can only select one tag. In search you can select more than just one. Just mentioning it, since it is an inconsistency. As for the search, you're not just searching the module names, you're also searching the description of the modules. There appears to be a typo in the longer description of mod_authz_dynamic, erroneously claiming its name to be 'mod_authnz_dynamic', which is why it turns up when you search for 'nz' (or 'authnz'). Ok, I was only looking at the result that was displayed and I could not find the 'nz' in the name of the module, nor the short description. We can discuss changing what exactly is being searched when a user enter a string, but perhaps such issues of fine tuning the engine is better put to purpose in a separate thread when the site has migrated and is free of any bugs that may be there. Sure, I've several ideas. :-) -- regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek lookup http://sks.pkqs.net for KeyID 0xC11F128D /* Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for chaos and madness await thee at its end. */
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/24/2013 08:51 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote: On 24.01.13 14:18 , Daniel Gruno wrote: Although you could just click on 'browse modules' again, I'll take your suggestion into consideration :) Perhaps clicking the green tag button should just reset to 'no tags' Yes, I saw that you can do that. As long as there are only a few tags, I guess just clicking on browse again will do. Also, in browse you can only select one tag. In search you can select more than just one. Just mentioning it, since it is an inconsistency. Browse is meant to be a view of modules put into categories, whereas a search can be a more complex way of 'browsing' the site. You could argue that the two should be alike, but then you could also argue that it would confuse someone who is looking at one tag, then wants to switch to another, that he/she first have to remove one tag and add a new, or it'd display those modules who have both tags, so it's a trade-off between simplicity and complexity. For me, the browse feature should just be a fast way to see the most popular modules in each respective category, not in any way a complex tool for searching, as the search feature does that just fine. As for the search, you're not just searching the module names, you're also searching the description of the modules. There appears to be a typo in the longer description of mod_authz_dynamic, erroneously claiming its name to be 'mod_authnz_dynamic', which is why it turns up when you search for 'nz' (or 'authnz'). Ok, I was only looking at the result that was displayed and I could not find the 'nz' in the name of the module, nor the short description. That is one thing to consider, indeed; Whether the search term should be highlighted/shown within each result, so you know what your query hit inside that particular module. I'll give it some consideration/experimenting. We can discuss changing what exactly is being searched when a user enter a string, but perhaps such issues of fine tuning the engine is better put to purpose in a separate thread when the site has migrated and is free of any bugs that may be there. Sure, I've several ideas. :-) Ideas are always welcome, in fact the entire web site is available in Subversion for those interested, But as I said earlier, perhaps that's better suited for another thread (I'll be sure to post such a thread once we actually start migrating). I believe we can both implement and improve the new system at the same time, one thing doesn't have to put a stop to the other. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 24.01.13 14:58 , Daniel Gruno wrote: so it's a trade-off between simplicity and complexity. For me, the browse feature should just be a fast way to see the most popular modules in each respective category, not in any way a complex tool for searching, as the search feature does that just fine. I agree. As I said I just wanted to mention it, since it stuck out as an inconsistency. But you have already put a lot of thought into it... When giving feedback I usually reverse the situation. e.g. what would help me and/or what would trigger a certain thought process or response. Mission acomplished. :-) Ideas are always welcome, in fact the entire web site is available in Subversion for those interested, But as I said earlier, perhaps that's better suited for another thread (I'll be sure to post such a thread once we actually start migrating). I believe we can both implement and improve the new system at the same time, one thing doesn't have to put a stop to the other. As soon as the new site is online, I'll look out for a new thread or send you an email. Cheers. -- regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek lookup http://sks.pkqs.net for KeyID 0xC11F128D /* Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for chaos and madness await thee at its end. */
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/23/2013 05:07 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk mailto:rum...@cord.dk wrote: I implore you to try out the new site, both as a regular visitor and as a (fake) module author, and see if this isn't a vast improvement of what we have. To whom or where to we post bugs? - Y If you find a bug, post it to me or on the list, whichever you think is appropriate. Obviously, a huge gaping security hole should be posted more private ;) Since it's an infrastructure operated site, I suppose you can also post a JIRA ticket. If/once the site goes live, I suspect modules-...@httpd.apache.org would be the right place to post such bugs. For those interested in the source code, it's available at sourceforge at the moment (I did not want to trouble infrastructure or httpd by spamming svn updates on a site that's not an asf site yet) at https://sourceforge.net/p/modulesao/code/ - anyone interested is, as said earlier, most welcome to join in and make contributions. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On Jan 22, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote: This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have objections, I suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try out the new system before you make up your mind - it's got lots of improvements, both for visitors and module authors. -1 Veto. +1 for updating the site and all your comments and suggestions. -1 for lazy consensus. Have you contacted Infra about supporting the newly designed site?
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
Suggestion: http://modules.humbedooh.com/search.lua Can you make a blank search entry default to wildcard glob? How else to search for all 'logging' modules, for example, without having to enter in something stupid like 'm' for a search term...
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/23/2013 04:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jan 22, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote: This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have objections, I suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try out the new system before you make up your mind - it's got lots of improvements, both for visitors and module authors. -1 Veto. +1 for updating the site and all your comments and suggestions. -1 for lazy consensus. Have you contacted Infra about supporting the newly designed site? Lazy consensus was retracted in my previous email, so no need for a veto :). As to infra, yes, I am a part of the infrastructure team myself, and am in dialogue with gavin who currently operates the site. Switching to a new httpd with the works should not be a big issue - it's our software after all ;). As for the search stuff, yes I'll take a look at making globs work, though you could just click on 'Browse' and then select the 'logging' tag. With regards, Daniel. PS: DOAP file support and email notifications to authors have also been added since the time of my last email.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote: If you find a bug, post it to me or on the list, whichever you think is appropriate. OK. Bug I found seems to be fixed (since about 2300 EST). When I clicked on the link to modules.lua on projects.lua, there was some error. Now it appears to be working. (and I just noticed that you sent me a message indicating that.) Several comments: - Clicking remove project should probably prompt Are you sure?. - It would be nice if the title would change based on the page you are on so that it is easier to use the browser's back/forward and history. - Y
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/23/2013 06:04 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk mailto:rum...@cord.dk wrote: If you find a bug, post it to me or on the list, whichever you think is appropriate. OK. Bug I found seems to be fixed (since about 2300 EST). When I clicked on the link to modules.lua on projects.lua, there was some error. Now it appears to be working. (and I just noticed that you sent me a message indicating that.) Several comments: - Clicking remove project should probably prompt Are you sure?. - It would be nice if the title would change based on the page you are on so that it is easier to use the browser's back/forward and history. - Y Yeah, I saw the bug and got it fixed - it appears to be a standard lua error that usually requires a small workaround. Yes, clicking remove should prompt - I'll add that, thanks for the tip :) And as for the title, I'll get around to that as well :) With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/21/2013 01:02 AM, Nick Kew wrote: On 19 Jan 2013, at 23:26, Daniel Gruno wrote: Hello dear dev@, I'd like to propose that we rewrite and rethink modules.apache.org. snip As suggested by a fellow ASFer, I am going to play this a bit hard and fast, as not a lot of people really care that much about the old site in its current state. A replacement site for modules.apache.org is in the works (it's actually nearly completed already, you can see it at http://modules.humbedooh.com/ - do try it out), and as such, I'd like to propose we make the switch from the old site to the new, and start afresh with the database, as it's very lacking in its current state. Once this is done, anyone with an interest in further developing the site is most welcome to contact me, and we'll start hashing out what remains to be done (I can always think of new things to add, such as Nick's suggestion about DOAP files, possibly supporting multiple Apache projects etc). This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have objections, I suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try out the new system before you make up your mind - it's got lots of improvements, both for visitors and module authors. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:29, Daniel Gruno wrote: This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start upgrading the site to the new system. I object! Not to the proposal: I have yet to review your candidate site. But to the 72 hour timescale. You should give it at least a weekend, and then however long it takes to resolve any discussions arising. The problem then comes when some discussion thread(s) get stuck in a dead end. Then you drop a 72-hour ultimatum on it! -- Nick Kew
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have objections, I suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try out the new system before you make up your mind - it's got lots of improvements, both for visitors and module authors. 72hr lazy consensus is not enough to scrap the site and data that we stepped up to support in the not so distant past.
RE: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
-Original Message- From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:25 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org? This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have objections, I suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try out the new system before you make up your mind - it's got lots of improvements, both for visitors and module authors. 72hr lazy consensus is not enough to scrap the site and data that we stepped up to support in the not so distant past. hmm, how have you been supporting it since the code was moved to the infra repo ? svn log shows : gmcdonald: (50 commits) joes: (8 commits) danielsh: (27 commits) markt: (64 commits) igalic (2 commits) as the only folks to touch the code since we move it to ASF servers.
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote: -Original Message- From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:25 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org? This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have objections, I suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try out the new system before you make up your mind - it's got lots of improvements, both for visitors and module authors. 72hr lazy consensus is not enough to scrap the site and data that we stepped up to support in the not so distant past. hmm, how have you been supporting it since the code was moved to the infra repo ? I think you're contrasting httpd vs. infra and saying we didn't live up to our end of the bargain. I'm not disagreeing with that, and I guess step up is probably a bit misleading. What I intended to convey was that people cared about this during the last reboot (whether or not we fulfilled a committment properly), and that 72h lazy was not enough consideration for them and the submitters of data. I could be totally misunderstanding you though. Do you take issue with slowing things down or is this a tangent?
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 01/23/2013 01:00 AM, Eric Covener wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote: -Original Message- From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:25 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org? This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have objections, I suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try out the new system before you make up your mind - it's got lots of improvements, both for visitors and module authors. 72hr lazy consensus is not enough to scrap the site and data that we stepped up to support in the not so distant past. hmm, how have you been supporting it since the code was moved to the infra repo ? I think you're contrasting httpd vs. infra and saying we didn't live up to our end of the bargain. I'm not disagreeing with that, and I guess step up is probably a bit misleading. What I intended to convey was that people cared about this during the last reboot (whether or not we fulfilled a committment properly), and that 72h lazy was not enough consideration for them and the submitters of data. I could be totally misunderstanding you though. Do you take issue with slowing things down or is this a tangent? Personally, I'm find with you guys objecting to a lazy consensus - it means this isn't just being ignored any more, as the site seems to have been for years, to be honest. The site is in a big need of an overhaul - there are no moderators for it currently, besides Gavin and me, and updates are done in the most painful way you can imagine. What I propose is a new site that lets authors update their modules in an easy, comfortable way, either manually adding new releases or managing it through a DOAP file, and which gives the visitors a better bang for their buck. The data we have on record now is stale, it's very sparse, and does not invite authors to do anything but just register the name of their module and a one-liner that'll hopefully get visitors attention - not much of a site if you ask me. I implore you to try out the new site, both as a regular visitor and as a (fake) module author, and see if this isn't a vast improvement of what we have. And I also ask you to consider, that with the new improvements, getting new module data will be a lot easier, and much of the scrapped data will surely come back in a hurry - except maybe for those modules that haven't been updated in this century or have been incorporated into httpd. So, for now, I'll withdraw my lazy consensus, and I'll instead put up a vote once the discussion has been had. This however requires some participation! With regards, Daniel.
RE: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
-Original Message- From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 10:31 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org; Gavin McDonald Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org? On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote: -Original Message- From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:25 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org? This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have objections, I suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try out the new system before you make up your mind - it's got lots of improvements, both for visitors and module authors. 72hr lazy consensus is not enough to scrap the site and data that we stepped up to support in the not so distant past. hmm, how have you been supporting it since the code was moved to the infra repo ? I think you're contrasting httpd vs. infra and saying we didn't live up to our end of the bargain. I'm not disagreeing with that, and I guess step up is probably a bit misleading. What I intended to convey was that people cared about this during the last reboot (whether or not we fulfilled a committment properly), and that 72h lazy was not enough consideration for them and the submitters of data. I could be totally misunderstanding you though. Do you take issue with slowing things down or is this a tangent? I don't want to start another debate here, but what I intended to say was that perhaps Daniel should just be left to get on with it seeing as no one has wanted to scratch that itch so far. Back when the modules site was move to the ASF hardware a year ago, talk back then was that it needed to be rewritten. So there's been plenty of time for others to step up between now and then. Daniel now has , and in only takes but 5 minutes to see what an improvement it is, it's a no brainer. Then, if this re-invigorates folks to jump in and help with improvements and new features then that's great too. [+] I'll agree that 72 hours [*] may not be enough for some folks if they are away or whatever, lets have Daniel extend until after the weekend then, but really no more, his itch is burning and we shouldn't stop that flow without good reason. And I don't see any good reason. Gav... [+] - I'm here with that intention , hope others do too. [*] - I planted Daniel with the suggestion of 72 hours , so blame me for that, I thought no one would dare object :)
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 20 Jan 2013, at 1:26 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote: So, to summarize: - modules.apache.org needs a general overhaul and a more detailed, dynamic approach to its way of handling/relaying information. - I propose we rebuild it from scratch, possibly using mod_lua as the driving engine, to showcase some of its uses. - I propose that we scrap the old data and start anew with modules that are still usable for httpd 2.2 and above. - I propose that this be a collaboration between those who express an interest in being part of it. - I propose that moderation/approval on the site be a joint venture between all committers who themselves have already shown merit to join the ASF. +1 on all counts. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
On 19 Jan 2013, at 23:26, Daniel Gruno wrote: Hello dear dev@, I'd like to propose that we rewrite and rethink modules.apache.org. Aha, the perennial call of the new contributor :) Seriously though, thanks for taking up this old chestnut. Let me throw my usual suggestion in to the ring, and see if your enthusiasm can inspire me to start hacking this time round. Since the modules are written by multiple independent developers, maintenance of the index should be delegated to those same folks. An author should not have to trouble the index every time they make an update. That means, m.a.o should basically be an aggregator. Each contributor produces a DOAP file describing their module(s). m.a.o runs a simple bot that crawls those files and aggregates the contents. Human intervention is only required when a new contributor submits a new DOAP URL. Or if problems are spotted. Automated procedures then check the DOAP and notify parse errors. It can also notify of new pages introduced (the contents at a DOAP URL may describe more than one module), and major changes to existing pages. That leaves just the question of search and browse tools. I guess we can offer browse by a range of categories and keywords, but for free text search I'd delegate to a google search (possibly hidden). -- Nick Kew
