On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Oh, right. Thanks Terry, > > I forgot what the exact differentiation was. To the extent that we are > maintaining software that is not ALv2 licensed or compatible, I would think > that any SVN for it would appear to be "elsewhere" also.
I think Apache Infrastructure is the place to ask - they are hosting ooo-wiki and ooo-forum. What this may require is that several OOo PPMC members will need to volunteer for Apache Infrastructure. > > So the content is still off wherever the engine is running. > > I assume there is the same differentiation for the wiki. > > I believe there *are* licensing issues on the forums and on the wikis with > regard to their content and its contribution. I am hoping to minimize > dealing with those by the forums and wikis still being served at > openoffice.org domain URLs until we figure out how to evolve the licensing, > registration, etc., business. I am sure some disruption can't be avoided, > but if we can shrink the extent of that at the beginning, it would be > wonderful. > > The same goes for the web site content, it seems to me, though in that case > we may need to do what was done to have German language pages where they can > be (essentially) served from an SVN at Apache, even if to an openoffice.org > URI. > > Am I getting warmer? Quite. Regards, Dave > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Terry Ellison [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 18:13 > To: [email protected] > Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RE: SVN and bringing the total end-to-end OOo project > under Configuration Management > > 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> >
