Olemis does have a point.
To avoid derailing this discussion, we could limit this proposal to the
principal of moving to gitbox. This leaves us with either migrating the
existing repo to gitbox or creating a new one if the old code is not
required. The github presence is not expect to be compromised based on
this and we probably want to allow for github as a possible route to
contribution regardless.
On the subject of github contributions, I believe we will still need to
maintain the requirement for ICLAs, at least for significant
contributions.
Cheers,
Gary
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, at 12:05 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> Hello John
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:22 PM, John Chambers <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Olemis,
> >
> > My proposal was to start with a clean git repository that will only contain
> > code related to the version of Bloodhound based on the Django platform. The
> > main reason for this is to ensure it is very clear which code is part of
> > the current active Bloodhound project.
>
>
> Well , I read the other thread , started by Gary , and it ended up as an
> open subject . There was a general consensus about migrating on to
> Django,
> but it was not clear to me that a decision has been made to start it from
> scratch . At least I have not read anything about that . In my opinion
> (cmiiw) that decision should come first . There is no reason for starting
> from scratch if it turns out that there is no consensus for doing so.
>
> If Apache Bloodhound is started from scratch , what would it look like?
> What shall be done? How? There is where I see the need for (at least one)
> BEP.
>
> I was tempted to paste in here some fragments of Gary's message to
> support
> my arguments , but I consider such cross-posting might end up being a
> mess.
> Maybe I am completely wrong but , considering the discussions in the list
> ,
> some other questions should be answered before deciding about the
> repository .
>
> Migrating to git => +1
> Use github => +1 ... in the short term until an MVP is obtained
> Starting from scratch => depends on what we do . We might even decide to
> start from another similar software powered by Django . In that case , it
> might be convenient to fork / import another repository instead.
>
> In the long term we should be using Apache Bloodhound to develop Apache
> Bloodhound, like we used to.
>
>
> > We are wanting to attract new
> > contributors to the project and so the codebase should make this as easy as
> > possible.
> >
>
> I've been following the conversation and I'm aware of what's been
> happening
> with the project for a while .
>
>
> >
> > I am currently working on getting the live site at
> > https://issues.achache.org/bloodhound back online.
> >
>
> Your efforts are highly appreciated (by me) .
>
>
> >
> > As for using the Bloodhound Enhancement Proposals for the new architecture
> > discussions etc, once the live site is back online that will certainly be a
> > possibility.
> >
> >
> The exact format is not the point . I mentioned BEPs because that's the
> way
> we used to document proposals , so I was expecting everybody familiar wth
> the history of the project to be on the same page quickly by just making
> a
> reference to them . The important thing is to have quick access to the
> latest version of the proposal.
>
> I already understood the goals , that's clear to me.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Olemis - @olemislc
>
> Apache™ Bloodhound contributor
> http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound
> http://blood-hound.net
>
> Brython committer
> http://brython.info
> http://github.com/brython-dev/brython
>
> SciPy Latin America - Ambassador
>
> Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
> Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
>
> Featured article:
