Why, it seems like a perfectly sensible policy to me. The projects listed on that page are under the fenics applications umbrella, and hence permitted to have repos in the fenics-apps team. The projects that do not want to be hosted within fenics-apps are not going to be forced into it, of course!
-j. On 23 May 2013 13:20, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 May 2013 12:07, Joachim Berdal Haga <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes. I suggest that whatever is listed on > > http://fenicsproject.org/applications/ is sanctioned. Which just moves > the > > problem elsewhere, but that problem already exists. > > > > That's not a policy. > > Not all those projects will want to be hosted within a fenics-apps > team. What will their status be? > > Garth > > > Does anybody else have an opinion on whether 'fenics-apps' should exist > as a > > team? In particular, are any of the other projects listed at > > fenicsproject.org/applications/ interested? > > > > -j. > > > > > > On 23 May 2013 12:30, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 23 May 2013 11:10, Joachim Berdal Haga <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > True, but I don't see it as significant. The repo can contain multiple > >> > development/release/topic branches, and if this isn't sufficient then > >> > multiple repos can be created by the team administrators. > >> > > >> > >> Just something to weigh up. The key question is whether having 'team' > >> is better than individual project teams. For example, maybe the CBC > >> collection is better as it's own team with a collection of > >> projects/repos rather than as a bunch of repos in a apps team. > >> > >> If there is one apps team and it's 'sanctioned', there needs to be a > >> policy on how a project qualifies, and under what circumstances it > >> should be removed. > >> > >> Garth > >> > >> > >> > (Later, after looking into team access administration:) I see now that > >> > repo > >> > creation is a separate acl, so it is possible to give creation rights > to > >> > projects without giving full administrative access. > >> > > >> > -j > >> > > >> > > >> > On 23 May 2013 11:31, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On 20 May 2013 21:33, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 08:13:44PM +0200, Joachim Berdal Haga > wrote: > >> >> >> I'm about to move cbc.block (which is listed as a fenics > >> >> >> application) > >> >> >> from launchpad to bitbucket. I think it would be nice if the > >> >> >> repository > >> >> >> could be in a "fenics-apps" team - like the "fenics-group" > >> >> >> project > >> >> >> on > >> >> >> launchpad. It makes the fenics applications more discoverable, > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> urls more descriptive. > >> >> >> I can of course create this team myself since the name isn't > >> >> >> taken, > >> >> >> but > >> >> >> I'd prefer it to be decided by somebody more in the loop than > >> >> >> I... > >> >> > > >> >> > I think having a fenics-apps team ( > https://bitbucket.org/fenics-apps) > >> >> > would be a good idea. And same as last time, I'd prefer if someone > >> >> > else took charge of it. Previously, Andy and Kristian did this on > >> >> > Launchpad. > >> >> > > >> >> > So if you volunteer, just go ahead and create the team, but lets > wait > >> >> > to get some more comments, especially from Andy and Kristian. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> There are some drawbacks to this. An 'apps' project won't have full > >> >> control, e.g. will not be able to create multiple repos. On > Launchpad, > >> >> fenics-apps was an umbrella rather than a team. > >> >> > >> >> Garth > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Anders > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > fenics mailing list > >> >> > [email protected] > >> >> > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics > >> > > >> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
