On 11/07/2012 10:41 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 10:33 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 09:59 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 09:03 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Nov 5, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/23/2012 09:33 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Oct 23, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
This should have been for devs Envoyé de mon iPhone Début du message transféré :
Expéditeur: Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> Date: 23 octobre 2012 09:19:55
UTC+02:00 Destinataire: XWiki Users <[email protected]> Objet: Github tracker. was: Re:
[xwiki-users] New Realtime collaborative editing extension. Just a quick. You seem to
introduce a practice to use the github tracker instead of xwiki.org jira's Not sure it's a
good thing. I'm sure Vincent will agree
Well, what I would prefer personally is that contrib projects be in the
xwiki-contrib organization and use the XWiki tools (wiki, jira, etc). The
reason is that this allows: * to group together projects around XWiki (they're
not scattered everywhere on the web and harder to find) * make it a neutral
location for people to collaborate together on xwiki projects. That's a key
element to contribution IMO * is more long term. If you stop working on the
project it's not going to be a dead project in someone's github repo and it'll
have more chance of being maintained/seen in the xwiki-contrib repo I know
Jerome also puts his contributions in his own github project and I had the same
reservation about it. We can't force anyone of course since this is a
contribution but it's more collaborative to make them xwiki-contrib project,
following the rules defined at http://contrib.xwiki.org I understand you may
want to beef up your github profile but for collaboration I feel the
xwiki-contrib is better with the 2 arguments listed above. Jerome, Caleb let me
know what you think.
Hi Vincent,
This is a interesting topic and there are several aspects to it.
For me the "discoverability" argument for having projects on https://github.com/xwiki-contribdoes
not make much sense. The centralized place for projects around XWiki is http://extensions.xwiki.org, not
github. There's the "view source" button that tells where the sources are. Github is a convenience
here, and it's always possible to "copy" (or fork) a project in xwiki-contrib, for whatever reason
(original project not active, etc.).
That being said I understand why you think it's better to have as much projects
as possible under the xwiki-contrib umbrella : it makes it a one-stop shop with
the same tools, same workflow, same permissions, etc.
Here are the arguments I see for why one contributor or contributing
organization would want to host its projects itself :
- use of own tools and own workflow (github issues vs. JIRA for example).
- it allows a contributor or contributing organization to have it's own place to
centralize its contribution(s) (the "beef up" argument as you say). I think
this can make sense in some circonstances, especially for contributing organizations
(companies for example).
The bottom line comes down to : what rules do we want for using the
"org.xwiki.contrib" groupId and tools (maven repos, CI, etc.) ?
If we want a rule saying that the project should be hosted on
github.com/xwiki-contrib/ then that's that, and I think it's fair. We just have
to decide on it (right now there is no such rule according to
http://contrib.xwiki.org/).
My take on this:
* Either the project is a xwiki-contrib project and then it gets the tools and
niceties included for being an xwiki-contrib project (jira, CI, web site,
ability to collaborate equally between contributors, email notifications on
xwiki lists, sonar dashboard coming soon, maven remote repository, etc) or it's
not and then it uses whatever tools it wants but not xwiki's project resources.
It seems fair to me.
* If we agree we should then update contrib.xwiki.org to explain better all that the user
will get by being an xwiki-contrib project and explain the alternative. And also explain
that if the user wants to host it himself then give him some direction for the maven
groupid/artifactid that he should or rather the ones he shouldn't use since it's reserved
(basicallty the rule is his groupid cannot start with org.xwiki, not sure if we want to
also say that his artifact id shouldn't start with "xwiki-" as its done for
maven plugins in apache land).
WDYT?
Makes sense to me.
One thing to consider also is the fact projects outside contrib will play less
well with XWiki extension manager since they won't be in XWiki nexus (unless
the repository they are in is added to nexus). Personnally I think we should
allow contributing organization repositories being added in XWiki's nexus so
that it's not a differentiator.
I mentioned that already in my reply when I said that xwiki-contrib projects
get a maven remote repo.
Re allowing external projects to be hosted in our remote maven repo, maybe but
it's dangerous. We need some oversight of the project we host because we're
then legally responsible for what we host. So we'd some way for people to
request hosting and have manual operation.
TBH I'm not sure if we should provide this since Sonatype already provides it
for any open source project, see
https://docs.sonatype.org/display/Repository/Sonatype+OSS+Maven+Repository+Usage+Guide
They already have all the tools to verify that poms are correct and more so I
don't think we should duplicate the effort.
Right now, I'd say we only offer a remote maven repo for our own projects and
we direct others to the Sonatype OSS repo.
Actually I wasn't talking about hosting, but about having their (external
repositories of contributing individuals/organizations that is not
xwiki-contrib) repositories proxied in XWiki's nexus so that they are found by
the extension manager with the default configuration.
I know :) I'm talking about the same thing! Our Nexus proxies several repos
including Maven Central. So if you push your artifact in Sonatype's OSS repo
then you get it in XWiki's Extension Manager ;)
Yes but one could still want it in its own repos and not sonatype.
Sure but then it's not our problem and I personally don't agree about proxying
other people's remote repos (too much maintenance and too dangerous). FYI Maven
Central stopped doing this after they had problems with it.
Could you expand on why too dangerous/what problems it causes ? For
example, what's the difference with repos we are already proxying ?
BTW we're not proxying sonatype repos yet AFAIK.
Sonatype's repos are synced to central AFAIK. And for the same reason we
shouldn't proxy any Sonatype repo.
OK not everything is synced it seems (c.f.
https://docs.sonatype.org/display/Repository/Sonatype+OSS+Maven+Repository+Usage+Guide#SonatypeOSSMavenRepositoryUsageGuide-6.CentralSyncRequirement)
that would explain why I had a dependency on sonatype's repos not
resoved by the EM by default (see
https://github.com/jvelo/xwiki-social-login/blob/master/pom.xml)
Jerome
-Vincent
Jerome
-Vincent
Reserving hosting on the maven repos to xwiki-contrib is fine.
Jerome
Thanks
-Vincent
Jerome.
Thanks
-Vincent
Jerome
Thanks -Vincent
Ludovic Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 23 oct. 2012 à 04:17, Caleb James DeLisle
<[email protected]> a écrit :
One other thing, please report the features which you want and what you imagine as best
on the github tracker, it's easier to close an issue as "won't fix" than it is
to remember an important issue which nobody wrote down ;) Thanks Caleb On 10/22/2012
10:14 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Hi, Thanks for the complement. I just updated it and fixed issue #1. Thanks for
reporting it. Somehow showing who else is editing, showing where they are
editing in the document and allowing the user to spawn a chat window with other
editors on the page are all interesting possibilities. Right now I think the
thing to do is decide where there is the most bang for your buck in terms of
feature value and get an idea of what's most natural for the user. Thanks,
Caleb On 10/19/2012 07:59 AM, Ryszard Łach wrote:
Great work! It looks like good starting point to give xwiki the main (at least
for me) feature, that makes googledoc sometimes more suitable for collaborative
editing. It would be really great, if your editor would show somehow, where the
other editor (person) is now, where is his cursor. Maybe a highlight (the whole
line) showing the other's cursor placement? Do you plan to work on such
improvements? R.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
