Dennis,
I just want to emphasise one of the key points that I made in my
original post and which seems to have got lost in the subsequent
dialogue. I differentiated between the "application" -- that is the S/W
configuration based on the customisation of a FLOSS package -- which
supports a service, say the forums, and the "content" which it contains.
* It is the *application* that needs to be brought under CM. Svn
is an appropriate tool to use for this, as it Git. It is these
applications /services that I would wish to bring under CM as is the
code base (and core documentation, etc.)
* The Logical Data Model (LDM) for the *content* and the usage
patterns are so far removed from that of svn and its operational sweet
spot, that any thought of attempting to force such content into svn
would be folly IMHO because:
+ As far as the forums go, the post rate on the forums probably
dominate all other commits on all Apache svn's combined. There is no
practical value in attempting to maintain versioning within or layered
over the phpBB.
+ Ditto any real rich and functional wiki. As far as I can
see, the only way that the "cwiki over svn" works at all is that the
aggregate update rates to the cwiki are rather low. MediaWiki has a
rich and -- in my opinion at least for wiki content -- superior
versioning and audit system compared to svn. Some things work well
using an RDBMS repository and some a file repository. In general a file
hierarchy makes a crap database, so why force this wiki content back
onto an svn model?
These technical reasons are quite orthogonal to the policy and licensing
issues in the previous discussions on this thread.
Regards Terry
On 29/08/11 22:09, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
I've been mulling this over and I am wondering about another way to look at the
problem, building on Eike's suggestion too.
This is not a proposal. It is too high-level and not concrete enough with a
viable roadmap. We need to see if we can find a consensus in principle and
then see what kind of roadmap would have http://openoffice.org continue in
operation. The goal is as little disruption as necessary to achieve rehosting
and sustained operation on behalf of the extended community and also create an
effective firewall between the Apache project and non-Apache community efforts
such as the NLC activities.
- Dennis
BASIC DIRECTION
I think the community material should not be underneath any of the existing
svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo subtrees (not site, not trunk, etc.).
My suggestion is that we use one or more new subtrees. ...<snip>
