I agree with you both: we need to get things done and find reliable tools up to the task.
Many opensource projects use cloud based services, and don't need/try to make everything open source at the infrastructure level. Jira is great for issue reporting and bug tracking. http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/ Nabble is great for mailing lists. http://www.nabble.com/ (one thing that bothers me is the 40KB limit of the openEHR lists emails) SVN or Git area great for version control. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:51:33 +0200 From: sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: Tools for collaborative working I agree with you Thomas, Whether these tools are open source or just free as in beer (for openEHR) - doesn't matter too much...for me it is far more important that the tool does its job. If there are open source tools that really do the job - fine....very fine indeed, but if not, I for one, do not want to use tools just because they are open source if we can have better ones that are just free. Not sure where this discussion stems from, but I am reasonably happy with the current Jira, Confluence and SVN approach and do not think that changing this is a huge priority. (It's not like there isn't anything on the foundation's priority list at the moment :-) ) But I may have missed the reasoning why openEHR's current tooling is not sufficient in the first place? Sebastian Am 16.09.2011 14:22, schrieb Thomas Beale: For openEHR, Atlassian hosted solution JiraStudio (not open source) may be worth considering since it solves the problem of physical hosting without (in theory) causing much disruption, since all the tools are the same - Confluence, Jira (particularly) and SVN. Atlassian bitbucket (completely separate from Atlassian mainstream hosted tools) uses Mercurial, a better DVCS than SVN, but its issue tracking etc is minimal. For the price of more disruption, Github would be one place to go, and it is probably the best DVCS there is (it was designed based on the BitKeeper solution we used to use in openEHR). How good the project tracking tools are I don't know, but they are claimed to be good. The main thing that is needed is integrated DVCS, project / issue tracking (with configurable workflows, security etc), wiki, mailing lists and continuous build server. Whether having everything open source is fundamentally important is debatable - in principle it is nicer, but I am more interested in getting work done efficiently, not battling tools that are in early development (certainly my experience with most free issue tracking systems - maybe the Git one is better). - thomas On 16/09/2011 09:29, Ian McNicoll wrote: Hi Tim, Can you give some examples of good open-source tools in this area? Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org On 16 September 2011 00:09, Timothy Cook <timothywayne.cook at gmail.com> wrote: Well, maybe you should consider real open source tools. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110916/859386ea/attachment.html>
