On 28 May 2013 11:19, Joachim Berdal Haga <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>

It looks OK to me. At least it is how I imagined it to be and I don't see a
reason why it shouldn't work.
Transferring ownership is probably better/cleaner than forking, Garth?

Kristian



>
>
> 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