On 30/08/11 07:12, Dave Fisher wrote:
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.
Since I am writing all the scripts and have developed the custom
extensions, I have no problem granting whatever FLOSS licence is needed
here -- at least for my work.
I am also a member of Apache Infrastructure. Even here there is a role
separation. To do "root stuff" on a box, you must be granted that
access by and participate in Apache Infrastructure, and the converse is
also true: the infrastructure team expects this work to be sufficiently
clearly defined and documented under its own svn infrastructure branch
so that, in principle, any member of the infrastructure can take over
such work.
However, working on the customisation of phpBB or MediaWiki doesn't
require "root access" just normal ssh access, just the same way that we
can all access people.apache.org, (except that to be a phpBB application
maintainer on the ooo-forums box, you also need SSH access and to be a
member of a mainainer's group).
Clearly this service-supporting software: e.g, the Ubuntu OS, the GNU
toolset, phpBB, MediaWiki, MySQL, ... do not need to be ALv2, though the
licence terms should not place constraints on any content. The
licensing of *content* is, in my view, quite disjoint from all this and
is for the project to decide in consultation with the Apache legal
people, etc., as we are doing.
So Rob is not championing the "correct view", nor is Dennis, nor I in
this regard. In my opinion there is no such thing as a "correct view"
here, just as there is no such thing as "the one true religion". Each
is just the view of an individual PPMC member and has no greater weight
per se than any other's. Certainly declaiming to be the arbiter of
authority on matters Apache doesn't make this so. Project *consensus*,
albeit within broad Apache guidelines, surely operates here, and our
debates should move to establish this consensus.
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>
