Kai - Thanks so much for the history lesson :) It provided exactly the context I was looking for. Sitting tight for TomH's push.
On Oct 9, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Kai Krueger <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/09/2012 02:31 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 09/10/12 21:24, Tom MacWright wrote: >> >>> All those are independent third party sites created by individuals >>> and are not directly related to core site. >>> >>> Aren't they using the same database somehow? >> >> No idea. >> >>> What we were talking about in the EWG meeting was adding a "bug" >>> reporting system to the main site that records things in the main >>> database and is integrated with the API etc. >>> >>> It is not directly related to any of the sites you mention. >>> >>> Okay, then what is it? :) Is it not open-source at all? I thought that >>> you were working on a branch of the 'official' OSB project and just >>> needed to merge/publish that? >> >> What part of "I will take an action to get something pushed out before >> the next meeting" did you fail to understand yesterday? >> >> The story is that Kai created something that was literally based on >> taking one of the existing OSB systems and bolting that javascript onto >> the rails code but it didn't produce a something that was very coherent >> with the rest of the site and API so I have been reworking it. > > Yes that is more or less correct. > > OpenStreetBugs in one form or another has existed for a long time now already > and has been a great resource to OSM. Imho one of its biggest shortcomings > however is visability. I.e. too few people people know about and use > OpenStreetBugs for it to fullfill its full potential. So people have been > talking about integrating it into the openstreetmap.org project for nearly as > long as OSB exists. > > However, as too often in OSM, despite everyone seemingly agreeing that this > should be a priority for some reason no one actually wrote any code for it. > > I noticed at some point that the original author of OSB actually wrote a > nicely encapsulated OpenLayers extension [1] to make it really easy for > people to integrate the client side OSB functionality into new sites without > having to "reinvent the wheel". > > Given how easy it was to integrate OSB into a new page, how much people > talked about the need for integrating this functionality into osm.org and > that no one else had coded something up, I hacked together a proof of concept > version in a few days in February 2010 and committed it to a branch of the > rails port [2]. The javascript part was a thin glue layer around the existing > OpenStreetBugs OpenLayers extension, while the backend was a > re-implementation of the OSB database in rails. > > Since then the backend side has been improved to be more in line with the API > layout of the rails_port (although the original API remained to be compatible > with the external OSB), but apart from a few tweeks, the javascript code > remained the original OpenLayers extension. > > The later part is (afaik) what Tom is objecting to and wants to rewrite it to > be more in line with the rest of the javascript on osm.org and meet the > maintainability standards of the code in rails_port. Also the currently > publicly committed code on the OpenStreetBugs branch is still in rails 2 > rather than rails 3. > > It is the clean up and improvement of this branch that TomH has currently > only locally as he hasn't gotten around to finishing it off in order to push > it back to the public branch. Although quite a bit of the cleanup and review > he has done on the branch (before the switch to rails3) has also already been > committed. > > So both the rails_port re-implementation and the original OSB code is > available in public repositories, just that there are some as yet unpublished > improvements that Tom has said we will try and get around to publishing till > the next EWG meeting. > > With respect to the relation to http://openstreetbugs.schokokeks.org/ and > http://osmbugs.org/ it is meant to be a replacement for the two (which I do > think are just two separate front-ends to the same bug database). It is > supposed to replace them. Back in 2010/2011 when I last talked to the author > of OSB, he was fine with the idea. > > There were also thoughts of migrating/ importing the existing OSB database > into the rails_port database and pointing the front-end on > http://openstreetbugs.schokokeks.org/ to use the then new "official" osm.org > rails_port database to make sure there wasn't any fragmentation of the bugs > database. > > I presume the authors of OSB would still be fine with this, although I don't > know if or what plans Tom has for a transition period. > > It at least partly depends on if the backend remains compatible with the > original OSB API making it feasible to migrate the old db and use the > frontend at http://openstreetbugs.schokokeks.org/ as a proxy. > > Should e.g. the decision be made that one needs to login to ones OSM account > in order to submit a bug / note then such a transition would obviously not be > possible. > > > I hope this makes it slightly clearer on the relation between the to be > re-implemented rails_port notes (OSB) branch and the original sites and at > what stage of development it currently is at. > > Kai > > > > > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetBugs/New_Client > [2] http://git.openstreetmap.org/rails.git/shortlog/refs/heads/openstreetbugs > >> >> There is a branch out there that you may stumble across but it bears no >> resemblence to the current code. >> >> Now if you want me to get what I have cleaned up and published I should >> probably stop writing emails about it and actually work on it instead... >> >> Tom >> > > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
