Thats also my fear expressed with: http://twitter.com/#!/tonit/status/66442033493053440
<http://twitter.com/#!/tonit/status/66442033493053440>The idea is to leverage existing - cutting edge if yo will - tooling while maintaining the public phase as a community effort. Thats where the new www.ops4j.org would fit in. It should be a clean entry that explains the gross idea (static pages, nice project sheets etc. + dynamic content aggregated from feeds like github). In the end it would feel like sacrifice self hosted, corporate looking infra for: - best services with least manpower/effort to maintain - make contribution barrier-less (or at least really low) -> this is the core idea of the original OPS4J. Thats really different from other communities. I think its worth to maintain that spirit - and not try to keep a huge boilerplate of confluence+jira+wiki+svn+github+ci running just because others do it. On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bcanh...@googlemail.com>wrote: > Hi Toni, > > thanks for taking your time to get this going. > I think this is a proper plan to work with. > > I only have a "bad" feeling right now. > It's the way the Issue Tracker of GitHub "feels" like. Somehow I fear > we do loose > the "professionalism" we had with Jira and somehow I fear our > "external presentation" as a > basis for good professional OpenSource Projects is going to be damaged. > > So if there is some sort of other alternative I'd appreciate that. > > This is just my 2 cents here :-\ > > regards, Achim > > 2011/5/6 Toni Menzel <t...@okidokiteam.com>: > > in order to ease the transition to a more reliable infrastructure, we are > > cleaning up the current infra that could be replaced quite soon by Github > & > > Google Code. > > This is not the final "go" - more about putting things in line so we can > DO > > the switch when it comes to it. > > Its also about cutting away old trash in the system. > > Open Jira issues on issues.ops4j.org is one thing to clean up. > > The first category of cleanup are issues that are open, in-progress or > > reopened. > > Here is a filter that highlights all 309 issues in > > question: > http://srv07.ops4j.org:8080/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?requestId=10111 > > I believe many of them are either > > - to be deleted because the project has kind of deceased. > > - or closed (if you want to keep it in the system). > > The remaining ones should only on active projects. - Some of those are > also > > probably duplicates or already solved by superior versions (we are > talking > > of issues created in 2006+). > > For project leads, it would be fine to skim through the issue list if > time > > at hand and trim the list of consolidate issues. > > The next category is Resolved but not Closed issues. > > Our rule (not sure if its a hard rule written somehwere) is to close > issues > > at the time the corresponding change is part of a shipped release. > > I bet many of them fall into that category. > > At the very end, we should end up with a much smaller list that we need > to > > digest and probably transfer to the new system (whatever it will be). > > wdyt? > > Toni > > > > -- > > Toni Menzel Source > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > general mailing list > > general@lists.ops4j.org > > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > > > > > -- > -- > *Achim Nierbeck* > > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> > Committer & Project Lead > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > -- Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
