Adam R. B. Jack wrote: > [please vote:]
*Python Gump [as replacement]
+.5. +.5 means that I think its a good idea, would like to contribute, but have no time to do so.
*Python Gump using Forrest
0. (though we shouldn't loose the immensely useful one-glance red/yellow/white coloring)
*Gump Statistics
-.5. Could be okay if 'done right'. Statistics always get abused all over the place.
*Gump and Ruper
+.5
*Distributed Gump Trees
+.5
*Gump Documenter
?
*Promoting more gump projects in public Gump
+0. Key point here is that what we cannot have is more projects being added but not more admins coming in to help. As it stands now, a handful of people maintains a s**tload of descriptors. That does not scale.
*Promoting more public/private/personal Gumps.
+0. First step is making it easy. After that, darwinism should help :D
*Promoting more OSS Gumps (e.g. on SF.net. on Java.net, etc.)
+0. promotion of continuous integration in general is a good idea. IMHO it would not be bad to have some "marketing" applied to gump (or a number of ASF projects). But I'm not about marketing, I'm a programmer :D
---
Anybody got any other itches they'd like to see scratched by Gump?
Just like people should run unit tests when they rework code, they should run a continuous integration tool. We need a way to make that happen. Gump could be part of that. I have a hunch that maven is, too.
I don't know if I am helping [community growth], or not.
me neither. Community engineering is a difficult science :D
> I [need to know when gumpy reaches critical mass]
I think: not yet. Critical will be when it can and will replace the other gump. In the long haul, we don't have resources to support both.
I am game [but] I don't want to take the Gumpy journey alone.
building an OSS project community is hard. Especially when a lot of the job is "unsexy". Gump is not sexy. It will remain difficult to get people to work on it.
Gump is incredibly valuable, I have no doubts about that, but it mustn't stagnate w/o reaching it's potential. I see folks commit time to configure projects, I see folks benefit from the outputs. That said, how do we promote a community of folks who care enough to maintain the service? I think too many people don't know Gump, nor it's potential, they just expect the service (like they do CVS). Is there a way we can make a concerted effort to promote Gump, and request developers? Thoughts?
Again: community engineering is a difficult science :D
Maybe we should actually stop thinking of gump as a software project and/or tool and more as an infrastructure service. Maybe we should reverse that, and force the users of gump to use it actively in some way.
Maybe someone should take time to put gump on the jakarta/asf agenda by raising all these questions on [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc.
Maybe we should just keep making it easier to the point where you just add <gump/> to your ant buildfile or type 'maven integrate'.
External community is key, and I see Gump as closed to those 300 or so modules it supports. Ought we propose a Gump on SF.net, or on java.net, or wherever?
work, work, work :D Yes, but we really do need volunteers to maintain them. Can't do that ourselves. I'm sure you could get someone or something to donate (tech) resources, but what we need is people...
I think Gump's strengths are best felt with a large profile, so much as the GUI Gump is cool, I think big public Gumps are invaluable. Has anybody suggested a Gump on SF.net to SF.net, to others? Now that Gump is far easier to install (than when Andy Oliver tried) it really ought be possible for folks to have their own. Is this a good thing for future Gump?
not sure.
---
hope this helps you make up your mind :D
cheers!
- Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
