On 28 May 2013 10:55, Joachim Berdal Haga <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 May 2013 10:42, Kristian Ølgaard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 28 May 2013 10:31, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> organize the apps on Bitbucket but I suspect anyone who tries it will >>> >> have a hard time tracking down all the app developers and moving them >>> over to Bitbucket. >>> >> >> We don't necessarily have to move all developers if we keep the links to >> individual app pages on http://fenicsproject.org/applications/. >> > > Indeed. >
I think we should change the introduction text on http://fenicsproject.org/applications/ to make it the central page for FEniCS Applications. We could also point people to Launchpad and Bitbucket as the two main resources for code. We should probably also list any requirements that we will not deviate from when considering a new apps project, apart from that, new candidates will be discussed on the mailing list. > > >> As development of FEniCS Plasticity is discontinued on Launchpad, I would >> be happy to stick it under some common fenics-apps repo/project on >> Bitbucket if possible while maintaining admin control of the Plasticity >> repository. >> > > How about an experiment. I'll create fenics-apps and fork > FEniCS-Plasticity into it, and give you admin rights to the fork. Then you > can have a look to see if it's good enough. We'll just delete it afterwards > if it isn't. > > That's a plan. We will most likely change the name anyway but let's try it out. Kristian > -j. > > > On 28 May 2013 10:42, Kristian Ølgaard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 28 May 2013 10:31, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> We tried at some point in the past to set up guidelines and rules for >>> apps but it was not very successful. App developers want complete >>> control of their code, coding practices etc which I think is fine. >>> >> >> As long as the app is using parts of FEniCS of course... what about >> license requirements? >> >> >>> So my suggestion would be to keep it as loose as possible: We list the >>> apps with an image, a short text and a link on the FEniCS web page - >>> that makes the apps "officially sanctioned". Other than that, the apps >>> can put their code wherever they want. I'd welcome any effort to >>> organize the apps on Bitbucket but I suspect anyone who tries it will >>> have a hard time tracking down all the app developers and moving them >>> over to Bitbucket. >>> >> >> We don't necessarily have to move all developers if we keep the links to >> individual app pages on http://fenicsproject.org/applications/. >> As development of FEniCS Plasticity is discontinued on Launchpad, I would >> be happy to stick it under some common fenics-apps repo/project on >> Bitbucket if possible while maintaining admin control of the Plasticity >> repository. >> >> Kristian >> >> >>> -- >>> Anders >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:07:12AM +0200, Joachim Berdal Haga wrote: >>> > I'll kick off: The value of fenics-apps in general is in the >>> increased >>> > visibility of these projects, and in return in "adding value" to >>> fenics >>> > by increasing its scope. But the value of any specific mechanism >>> > whereby the apps are grouped or blessed - on [1]fenicsproject.org, >>> on >>> > launchpad or bitbucket, in the book - is more fluid. In my opinion, >>> > each of these has a potential audience and are worthwhile. >>> > -j. >>> > >>> > On 28 May 2013 09:55, Garth N. Wells <[2][email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > On 28 May 2013 08:35, Joachim Berdal Haga <[3][email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > I think with the limited interest and disagreements about >>> procedure, >>> > I'll >>> > > shelve this idea for now. >>> > > >>> > >>> > I wouldn't say disagreements - it's a different system so the pros >>> > and >>> > cons needed to be assessed to make an informed decision. It's also >>> > an >>> > opportunity to reflect on what with the 'apps' has worked well, >>> and >>> > what perhaps hasn't worked well. I think it's a discussion still >>> > worth >>> > having. >>> > Garth >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 23 May 2013 13:46, Joachim Berdal Haga <[4][email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> 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 <[5][email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On 23 May 2013 12:07, Joachim Berdal Haga <[6][email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Yes. I suggest that whatever is listed on >>> > >>> > [7]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 >>> > >>> > [8]fenicsproject.org/applications/ interested? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -j. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 23 May 2013 12:30, Garth N. Wells <[9][email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> On 23 May 2013 11:10, Joachim Berdal Haga <[10] >>> [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 <[11][email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> On 20 May 2013 21:33, Anders Logg <[12][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 >>> > >>> >> >> > ([13]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 >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> > Referenser >>> > >>> > 1. http://fenicsproject.org/ >>> > 2. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 3. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 4. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 5. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 6. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 7. http://fenicsproject.org/applications/ >>> > 8. http://fenicsproject.org/applications/ >>> > 9. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 10. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 11. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 12. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 13. https://bitbucket.org/fenics-apps >>> > 14. mailto:[email protected] >>> > 15. http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fenics mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
