It's there now, on https://bitbucket.org/fenics-apps. Depending on
preferences, it may be better to transfer repo ownership rather than
forking, to avoid (or reverse) the "fork of ..." status. Anyway, have a
look and let me know how it goes.


On 28 May 2013 11:10, Kristian Ølgaard <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> 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

Reply via email to