[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Am Montag, 8. Juni 2009 12:10:39 schrieb Florent Daigniere:
> No way. Bugzilla is everything but usable in our case.

OK. So it's Trac (with complex import but DVCS integration), Mantis (which 
some don't like) or an unfree solution. Did I miss one? 

I didn't yet include roundup, because I only saw today, that it does have the 
ability to handle dependencies, Also it has a optional commandline and XMLRPC 
interfaces. 

- http://www.roundup-tracker.org/

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Am Montag, 8. Juni 2009 12:10:39 schrieb Florent Daigniere:
 No way. Bugzilla is everything but usable in our case.

OK. So it's Trac (with complex import but DVCS integration), Mantis (which 
some don't like) or an unfree solution. Did I miss one? 

I didn't yet include roundup, because I only saw today, that it does have the 
ability to handle dependencies, Also it has a optional commandline and XMLRPC 
interfaces. 

- http://www.roundup-tracker.org/

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Florent Daigniere]

Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Friday, 5. June 2009 21:59:46 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>> I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though "oh well,
>>> it's not really integral for freenet". But the bugtracker is integral,
>>> and relying on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is
>>> dangerous.
>> Ideologically I agree, however we do need something hosted (mantis is a
>> major pain to keep up to date manually and is in php so has security
>> issues), and practically speaking MANTIS works but it is probably not the
>> most helpful in terms of getting useful work done. We could get free
>> hosting for Trac, but it may be tricky to import bugs as Trac doesn't have
>> support for dependancies between bugs
> 
> What about Bugzilla? 
> 
> - http://www.bugzilla.org/about/
> 
> It's what Gentoo uses to manage bug reports - and it definitely has enough 
> power - it's used to track packages for programs which leads to about 200.000 
> bugs or so :) 
>

No way. Bugzilla is everything but usable in our case.

NextGen$

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Monday, 8. June 2009 05:44:58 Ian Clarke wrote:
> > And no matter how nice these people are, do you trust their strengths of
> > principles not to stab our back when they get threatened, if their
> > principles aren't even strong enough to make their project free software?
>
> What if it isn't that their principles aren't strong, perhaps they
> simply don't agree with your principles?

That's a possibility, and maybe I'm too fixed on free software at times. Not 
maybe. I am too fixed at it at times - at least when you ask some of my 
friends. 

The reason why I'm very wary of using nonfree software for the bugtracker of 
freenet is that this could create a lock-in, and that lock-in is only true as 
long as lighthouse doesn't provide a simple way to export the data into a 
format usable for other bugtrackers. 

Should they provide that export option, then they don't create a lock-in: It's 
always possible to just switch on if something bad should happen (and we could 
periodically export to have a clean backup). But I didn't find anything about 
that on their website. 

> I run a company that produces non-open source software.  I do-so
> because its the only way for the company to be financially viable, if
> my business plan was to open source the software then the software
> simply wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't be financially viable to
> create it.  Would the world be a better place without the software
> I've created, even if that software isn't open source?  I don't think
> so.

You shouldn't, else you'd have the wrong job :) 

But freenet lives as free project on donations, so it doesn't need to become 
dependent on unfree software to be viable. On the contrary. I don't know how 
many of the donors think like me and only donate to free projects. 

> I suggest you re-read the Freenet mission statement, here it is for
> your convenience - note that it says nothing that would limit us to
> use of open source software:
>
> "The specific purpose of this corporation is to assist in developing
> and disseminating technological solutions to further the open and
> democratic distribution of information over the Internet or its
> successor electronic communication networks or organizations. It is
> also the purpose of this organization to guarantee consenting
> individuals the free, unmediated, and unimpeded reception and
> impartation of all intellectual, scientific, literary, social,
> artistic, creative, human rights, and cultural expressions, opinions
> and ideas without interference or limitation by or service to state,
> private, or special interests. It is also the purpose of this
> organization to educate the world community and be an advocate of
> these purposes."

As more and more education organizations move on towards open access, it 
becomes more and more visible that to archieve the goal of truly free 
communication, free/open licenses are a prerequisite. 

And if this licensing is done consequentially, it leads to free software using 
open standards. 

Every other kind of software creates an imbalance of power: Those who can 
change the software (or learn to do so) and those who can't, regardless of 
their ability. More exactly: Unfree software arbitrarily gives some people 
power over the lives of other people. And when unfree software is necessary 
for some kinds of communication, the users who depend on this communication 
are at the mercy of the ones who created the software. 

We don't talk about a better frontend to a bugtracking system, but about the 
whole system which would also hold the data. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Monday, 8. June 2009 03:22:13 steve wrote:
> As others have pointed out, we're only talking about a bug tracker, at most
> it is an annoyance and not a threat to the projects security

A bugtracker is _very close_ to a development dependency. How much time did we 
now spend with searching for a new bugtracker? That's the time it would cost 
again. 

Also completely apart from ideology, we don't know if lighthouse will remain 
in business. A paid server on the other hand will remain as long as freenet 
stays funded - or at least allow dumping the data to easily migrate to another 
server. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Saturday, 6. June 2009 00:43:12 Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the
> >> site)
> >
> > No. :|
>
> Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
> http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans

That's gratis but not libre, so it isn't free. Matthew got that quite right. 

Making a sensitive project dependent on unfree software is just reckless. 

We have no legal leverage which couldn't be taken away in a blink. 

And no matter how nice these people are, do you trust their strengths of 
principles not to stab our back when they get threatened, if their principles 
aren't even strong enough to make their project free software? 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Saturday, 6. June 2009 00:49:42 Ian Clarke wrote:
> Its only a bugtracker.  If they were to suddenly go evil (which they
> have no incentive to do) then it would be an annoyance, but not a
> disaster - we'd just move elsewhere.

When we take a look at the current search for a new solution, I think it would 
be quite a catastrophe. 

It would mean losing all (then) recent bugs and all recent changes to older 
bugs. 

And they could go evil, because someone tells them to - or shut down because 
they support projects which help people avoid censorship. And you know, 
censorship is good, because it helps the children (don't laugh, please, they 
are currently spurting that argumentation around in germany to implement 
effective police-controlled censorship). 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Friday, 5. June 2009 21:59:46 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though "oh well,
> > it's not really integral for freenet". But the bugtracker is integral,
> > and relying on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is
> > dangerous.
>
> Ideologically I agree, however we do need something hosted (mantis is a
> major pain to keep up to date manually and is in php so has security
> issues), and practically speaking MANTIS works but it is probably not the
> most helpful in terms of getting useful work done. We could get free
> hosting for Trac, but it may be tricky to import bugs as Trac doesn't have
> support for dependancies between bugs

What about Bugzilla? 

- http://www.bugzilla.org/about/

It's what Gentoo uses to manage bug reports - and it definitely has enough 
power - it's used to track packages for programs which leads to about 200.000 
bugs or so :) 

-> http://bugs.gentoo.org/report.cgi

Or having a managed server with a standard Linux distribution on it, so 
updates don't hurt anymore? 

I would have little problem with administering a Gentoo server. Do a weekly 
"emerge sync; emerge -uDN world" 
and the system keeps itself up to date. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Monday, 8. June 2009 03:22:13 steve wrote:
 As others have pointed out, we're only talking about a bug tracker, at most
 it is an annoyance and not a threat to the projects security

A bugtracker is _very close_ to a development dependency. How much time did we 
now spend with searching for a new bugtracker? That's the time it would cost 
again. 

Also completely apart from ideology, we don't know if lighthouse will remain 
in business. A paid server on the other hand will remain as long as freenet 
stays funded - or at least allow dumping the data to easily migrate to another 
server. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Monday, 8. June 2009 05:44:58 Ian Clarke wrote:
  And no matter how nice these people are, do you trust their strengths of
  principles not to stab our back when they get threatened, if their
  principles aren't even strong enough to make their project free software?

 What if it isn't that their principles aren't strong, perhaps they
 simply don't agree with your principles?

That's a possibility, and maybe I'm too fixed on free software at times. Not 
maybe. I am too fixed at it at times - at least when you ask some of my 
friends. 

The reason why I'm very wary of using nonfree software for the bugtracker of 
freenet is that this could create a lock-in, and that lock-in is only true as 
long as lighthouse doesn't provide a simple way to export the data into a 
format usable for other bugtrackers. 

Should they provide that export option, then they don't create a lock-in: It's 
always possible to just switch on if something bad should happen (and we could 
periodically export to have a clean backup). But I didn't find anything about 
that on their website. 

 I run a company that produces non-open source software.  I do-so
 because its the only way for the company to be financially viable, if
 my business plan was to open source the software then the software
 simply wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't be financially viable to
 create it.  Would the world be a better place without the software
 I've created, even if that software isn't open source?  I don't think
 so.

You shouldn't, else you'd have the wrong job :) 

But freenet lives as free project on donations, so it doesn't need to become 
dependent on unfree software to be viable. On the contrary. I don't know how 
many of the donors think like me and only donate to free projects. 

 I suggest you re-read the Freenet mission statement, here it is for
 your convenience - note that it says nothing that would limit us to
 use of open source software:

 The specific purpose of this corporation is to assist in developing
 and disseminating technological solutions to further the open and
 democratic distribution of information over the Internet or its
 successor electronic communication networks or organizations. It is
 also the purpose of this organization to guarantee consenting
 individuals the free, unmediated, and unimpeded reception and
 impartation of all intellectual, scientific, literary, social,
 artistic, creative, human rights, and cultural expressions, opinions
 and ideas without interference or limitation by or service to state,
 private, or special interests. It is also the purpose of this
 organization to educate the world community and be an advocate of
 these purposes.

As more and more education organizations move on towards open access, it 
becomes more and more visible that to archieve the goal of truly free 
communication, free/open licenses are a prerequisite. 

And if this licensing is done consequentially, it leads to free software using 
open standards. 

Every other kind of software creates an imbalance of power: Those who can 
change the software (or learn to do so) and those who can't, regardless of 
their ability. More exactly: Unfree software arbitrarily gives some people 
power over the lives of other people. And when unfree software is necessary 
for some kinds of communication, the users who depend on this communication 
are at the mercy of the ones who created the software. 

We don't talk about a better frontend to a bugtracking system, but about the 
whole system which would also hold the data. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Florent Daigniere]

Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
 On Friday, 5. June 2009 21:59:46 Matthew Toseland wrote:
 I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though oh well,
 it's not really integral for freenet. But the bugtracker is integral,
 and relying on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is
 dangerous.
 Ideologically I agree, however we do need something hosted (mantis is a
 major pain to keep up to date manually and is in php so has security
 issues), and practically speaking MANTIS works but it is probably not the
 most helpful in terms of getting useful work done. We could get free
 hosting for Trac, but it may be tricky to import bugs as Trac doesn't have
 support for dependancies between bugs
 
 What about Bugzilla? 
 
 - http://www.bugzilla.org/about/
 
 It's what Gentoo uses to manage bug reports - and it definitely has enough 
 power - it's used to track packages for programs which leads to about 200.000 
 bugs or so :) 


No way. Bugzilla is everything but usable in our case.

NextGen$
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Saturday, 6. June 2009 00:43:12 Ian Clarke wrote:
>> >> Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the
>> >> site)
>> >
>> > No. :|
>>
>> Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
>> http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans
>
> That's gratis but not libre, so it isn't free. Matthew got that quite right.

In English "free" has both meanings, so it is "free".

> Making a sensitive project dependent on unfree software is just reckless.

No it isn't.  I like open source software, but I'm not an absolutist,
I'm a pragmatist.  Nowhere in Freenet's mission statement does it say
that it is a responsibility of the project to only use open source
tools.  If a non-open source piece of software helps us do a better
job of producing a piece of software which does meet Freenet's stated
goals, then it would be a violation of those stated goals not to use
it.

> We have no legal leverage which couldn't be taken away in a blink.

We don't need legal leverage.  The worst case scenario is merely an
inconvenience for us, and even then it is very unlikely to happen.

> And no matter how nice these people are, do you trust their strengths of
> principles not to stab our back when they get threatened, if their principles
> aren't even strong enough to make their project free software?

What if it isn't that their principles aren't strong, perhaps they
simply don't agree with your principles?

I run a company that produces non-open source software.  I do-so
because its the only way for the company to be financially viable, if
my business plan was to open source the software then the software
simply wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't be financially viable to
create it.  Would the world be a better place without the software
I've created, even if that software isn't open source?  I don't think
so.

I suggest you re-read the Freenet mission statement, here it is for
your convenience - note that it says nothing that would limit us to
use of open source software:

"The specific purpose of this corporation is to assist in developing
and disseminating technological solutions to further the open and
democratic distribution of information over the Internet or its
successor electronic communication networks or organizations. It is
also the purpose of this organization to guarantee consenting
individuals the free, unmediated, and unimpeded reception and
impartation of all intellectual, scientific, literary, social,
artistic, creative, human rights, and cultural expressions, opinions
and ideas without interference or limitation by or service to state,
private, or special interests. It is also the purpose of this
organization to educate the world community and be an advocate of
these purposes."

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[steve]

As others have pointed out, we're only talking about a bug tracker, at most
it is an annoyance and not a threat to the projects security

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:

> On Saturday, 6. June 2009 00:43:12 Ian Clarke wrote:
> > >> Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on
> the
> > >> site)
> > >
> > > No. :|
> >
> > Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
> > http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans
>
> That's gratis but not libre, so it isn't free. Matthew got that quite
> right.
>
> Making a sensitive project dependent on unfree software is just reckless.
>
> We have no legal leverage which couldn't be taken away in a blink.
>
> And no matter how nice these people are, do you trust their strengths of
> principles not to stab our back when they get threatened, if their
> principles
> aren't even strong enough to make their project free software?
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne
>
> --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
>   - singing a part of the history of free software -
>  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
>
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Friday, 5. June 2009 21:59:46 Matthew Toseland wrote:
  I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though oh well,
  it's not really integral for freenet. But the bugtracker is integral,
  and relying on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is
  dangerous.

 Ideologically I agree, however we do need something hosted (mantis is a
 major pain to keep up to date manually and is in php so has security
 issues), and practically speaking MANTIS works but it is probably not the
 most helpful in terms of getting useful work done. We could get free
 hosting for Trac, but it may be tricky to import bugs as Trac doesn't have
 support for dependancies between bugs

What about Bugzilla? 

- http://www.bugzilla.org/about/

It's what Gentoo uses to manage bug reports - and it definitely has enough 
power - it's used to track packages for programs which leads to about 200.000 
bugs or so :) 

- http://bugs.gentoo.org/report.cgi

Or having a managed server with a standard Linux distribution on it, so 
updates don't hurt anymore? 

I would have little problem with administering a Gentoo server. Do a weekly 
emerge sync; emerge -uDN world 
and the system keeps itself up to date. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Saturday, 6. June 2009 00:49:42 Ian Clarke wrote:
 Its only a bugtracker.  If they were to suddenly go evil (which they
 have no incentive to do) then it would be an annoyance, but not a
 disaster - we'd just move elsewhere.

When we take a look at the current search for a new solution, I think it would 
be quite a catastrophe. 

It would mean losing all (then) recent bugs and all recent changes to older 
bugs. 

And they could go evil, because someone tells them to - or shut down because 
they support projects which help people avoid censorship. And you know, 
censorship is good, because it helps the children (don't laugh, please, they 
are currently spurting that argumentation around in germany to implement 
effective police-controlled censorship). 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Saturday, 6. June 2009 00:43:12 Ian Clarke wrote:
  Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the
  site)
 
  No. :|

 Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
 http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans

That's gratis but not libre, so it isn't free. Matthew got that quite right. 

Making a sensitive project dependent on unfree software is just reckless. 

We have no legal leverage which couldn't be taken away in a blink. 

And no matter how nice these people are, do you trust their strengths of 
principles not to stab our back when they get threatened, if their principles 
aren't even strong enough to make their project free software? 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[steve]

As others have pointed out, we're only talking about a bug tracker, at most
it is an annoyance and not a threat to the projects security

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.dewrote:

 On Saturday, 6. June 2009 00:43:12 Ian Clarke wrote:
   Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on
 the
   site)
  
   No. :|
 
  Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
  http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans

 That's gratis but not libre, so it isn't free. Matthew got that quite
 right.

 Making a sensitive project dependent on unfree software is just reckless.

 We have no legal leverage which couldn't be taken away in a blink.

 And no matter how nice these people are, do you trust their strengths of
 principles not to stab our back when they get threatened, if their
 principles
 aren't even strong enough to make their project free software?

 Best wishes,
 Arne

 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de

 ___
 Devl mailing list
 Devl@freenetproject.org
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Arne Babenhauserheidearne_...@web.de wrote:
 On Saturday, 6. June 2009 00:43:12 Ian Clarke wrote:
  Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the
  site)
 
  No. :|

 Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
 http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans

 That's gratis but not libre, so it isn't free. Matthew got that quite right.

In English free has both meanings, so it is free.

 Making a sensitive project dependent on unfree software is just reckless.

No it isn't.  I like open source software, but I'm not an absolutist,
I'm a pragmatist.  Nowhere in Freenet's mission statement does it say
that it is a responsibility of the project to only use open source
tools.  If a non-open source piece of software helps us do a better
job of producing a piece of software which does meet Freenet's stated
goals, then it would be a violation of those stated goals not to use
it.

 We have no legal leverage which couldn't be taken away in a blink.

We don't need legal leverage.  The worst case scenario is merely an
inconvenience for us, and even then it is very unlikely to happen.

 And no matter how nice these people are, do you trust their strengths of
 principles not to stab our back when they get threatened, if their principles
 aren't even strong enough to make their project free software?

What if it isn't that their principles aren't strong, perhaps they
simply don't agree with your principles?

I run a company that produces non-open source software.  I do-so
because its the only way for the company to be financially viable, if
my business plan was to open source the software then the software
simply wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't be financially viable to
create it.  Would the world be a better place without the software
I've created, even if that software isn't open source?  I don't think
so.

I suggest you re-read the Freenet mission statement, here it is for
your convenience - note that it says nothing that would limit us to
use of open source software:

The specific purpose of this corporation is to assist in developing
and disseminating technological solutions to further the open and
democratic distribution of information over the Internet or its
successor electronic communication networks or organizations. It is
also the purpose of this organization to guarantee consenting
individuals the free, unmediated, and unimpeded reception and
impartation of all intellectual, scientific, literary, social,
artistic, creative, human rights, and cultural expressions, opinions
and ideas without interference or limitation by or service to state,
private, or special interests. It is also the purpose of this
organization to educate the world community and be an advocate of
these purposes.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Daniel Cheng]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Matthew
> Toseland wrote:
>> On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>>  wrote:
>>> > What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
>>>
>>> I vote for ?lighthouse. ?I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
>>> Lighthouse is better than all. ?It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
>>> impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
>>
>> How is it different to Mantis then?
>
> The most obvious thing is a much nicer UI. ?You can tag bugs to
> categorize them, and it makes it easy to specify relationships between
> bugs - you just mention them, like "Depends on #234" - it will create
> a by-directional link.

Sorry, not mantis got tags too.  -- just nobody but me is using it.

>
>> Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?
>
> It has an API, and there is a conduit for Trac, but none for Mantis
> that I'm aware of, so we'd probably need to hack together a script.

There is a SOAP api.

>
> Ian.
>
> --
> Ian Clarke
> CEO, Uprizer Labs
> Email: ian at uprizer.com
> Ph: +1 512 422 3588
> Fax: +1 512 276 6674
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 05 June 2009 23:49:42 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> > I vote for ?lighthouse. ?I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
> >> > Lighthouse is better than all. ?It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
> >> > impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
> >>
> >> How is it different to Mantis then?
> >>
> >> Anyone else have an opinion?
> >
> > Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the 
> > site)
> 
> It is free as in beer for open source projects, so yes.
> 
> > Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific
> > entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity
> > might be at the moment.
> 
> Its only a bugtracker.  If they were to suddenly go evil (which they
> have no incentive to do) then it would be an annoyance, but not a
> disaster - we'd just move elsewhere.

It would be a MAJOR annoyance, but yes it would probably be possible with, 
hopefully, a few hours to a few days work, to convert backed up bugs to another 
bug tracker.
> 
> > I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though "oh well, 
> > it's
> > not really integral for freenet". But the bugtracker is integral, and 
> > relying
> > on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous.
> 
> Not if:
> 
> 1) they have no incentive to hurt us, quite the opposite, we'd bring
> positive attention to them
> 
> 2) they only have our bugs, even in the worst case the worse thing
> they could do is inconvenience us
> 
> The reality is that we need to outsource this stuff, we've tried
> hosting our own tools and it soaked up a large amount of time, left us
> extremely dependent on Nextgens (who no-longer wants this role), and
> cost quite a bit of $$$.  All of these things are dangerous and bad
> for the project in very measurable ways.
> 
> Much better to let our tools be managed by people exclusively focused
> on the task, especially when its free (as Lighthouse is).

Well, there are other options. Sourceforge and others run free Trac instances, 
for example. And migrating our existing bugs to them will be no more difficult 
than migrating them to Lighthouse in all likelihood: It will be a major PITA in 
any case IMHO, but it's that or run it on shared hosting, probably having to 
keep it up to date ourselves, although with luck we might be able to migrate it 
to a managed mantis on e.g. godaddy.

Why is Lighthouse better than Mantis or Trac, both of which we could get from 
sourceforge? Mantis has the clear advantage that we know it. If Lighthouse does 
exactly the same as Mantis and is slightly prettier, for example, there is 
little point in changing. On the other hand, if it is significantly easier for 
users to report bugs, that would be a good reason to consider it, provided that 
we can migrate our existing bugs (which I see no evidence of so far), and 
provided that it provides comparable features.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 05 June 2009 23:43:12 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Matthew
> Toseland wrote:
> > On Friday 05 June 2009 07:54:08 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> > > I vote for ?lighthouse. ?I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
> >> > > Lighthouse is better than all. ?It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
> >> > > impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
> >> >
> >> > How is it different to Mantis then?
> >> >
> >> > Anyone else have an opinion?
> >>
> >> Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the 
> >> site)
> >
> > No. :|
> 
> Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
> http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans

That is definitely not what he meant!
> 
> If it is unfree, it doesn't look suitable as bugtracker for a censorship free 
> network to me. 
> 
> Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific 
> entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity 
> might be at the moment. 
> 
> I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though "oh well, it's 
> not really integral for freenet". But the bugtracker is integral, and relying 
> on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 05 June 2009 07:54:08 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
> > > Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
> > > impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
> >
> > How is it different to Mantis then?
> >
> > Anyone else have an opinion?
> 
> Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the site)

No. :|
> 
> If it is unfree, it doesn't look suitable as bugtracker for a censorship free 
> network to me. 
> 
> Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific 
> entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity 
> might be at the moment. 
> 
> I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though "oh well, it's 
> not really integral for freenet". But the bugtracker is integral, and relying 
> on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous. 

Ideologically I agree, however we do need something hosted (mantis is a major 
pain to keep up to date manually and is in php so has security issues), and 
practically speaking MANTIS works but it is probably not the most helpful in 
terms of getting useful work done. We could get free hosting for Trac, but it 
may be tricky to import bugs as Trac doesn't have support for dependancies 
between bugs - presumably a conversion script would just put them into the 
HTML/wiki markup for the bug...
> 
> Best wishes, 
> Arne
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 05 June 2009 00:59:09 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Matthew
> Toseland wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
> >>  wrote:
> >> > What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
> >>
> >> I vote for ?lighthouse. ?I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
> >> Lighthouse is better than all. ?It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
> >> impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
> >
> > How is it different to Mantis then?
> >
> > Anyone else have an opinion?
> >
> > Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?
> >>
> 
> Does lighthouse have "related bugs" or other duplicated bugs fields?

Or freeform HTML into which these could be converted, as with Trac?
> 
> [...]

Other important features?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Matthew
Toseland wrote:
> Why is Lighthouse better than Mantis or Trac, both of which we could get from 
> sourceforge? Mantis has the clear advantage that we know it. If Lighthouse 
> does exactly the same as Mantis and is slightly prettier, for example, there 
> is little point in changing. On the other hand, if it is significantly easier 
> for users to report bugs, that would be a good reason to consider it, 
> provided that we can migrate our existing bugs (which I see no evidence of so 
> far), and provided that it provides comparable features.

I would say that Lighthouse will make it more likely that users will
report bugs.  It has an open friendly feel that, frankly, Mantis
doesn't.  But you should play with it yourself and form your own
opinion.

Ian.

--
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> > I vote for ?lighthouse. ?I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
>> > Lighthouse is better than all. ?It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
>> > impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
>>
>> How is it different to Mantis then?
>>
>> Anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the site)

It is free as in beer for open source projects, so yes.

> Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific
> entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity
> might be at the moment.

Its only a bugtracker.  If they were to suddenly go evil (which they
have no incentive to do) then it would be an annoyance, but not a
disaster - we'd just move elsewhere.

> I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though "oh well, it's
> not really integral for freenet". But the bugtracker is integral, and relying
> on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous.

Not if:

1) they have no incentive to hurt us, quite the opposite, we'd bring
positive attention to them

2) they only have our bugs, even in the worst case the worse thing
they could do is inconvenience us

The reality is that we need to outsource this stuff, we've tried
hosting our own tools and it soaked up a large amount of time, left us
extremely dependent on Nextgens (who no-longer wants this role), and
cost quite a bit of $$$.  All of these things are dangerous and bad
for the project in very measurable ways.

Much better to let our tools be managed by people exclusively focused
on the task, especially when its free (as Lighthouse is).

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Matthew
Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 05 June 2009 07:54:08 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> > > I vote for ?lighthouse. ?I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
>> > > Lighthouse is better than all. ?It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
>> > > impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
>> >
>> > How is it different to Mantis then?
>> >
>> > Anyone else have an opinion?
>>
>> Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the 
>> site)
>
> No. :|

Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Matthew
Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>  wrote:
>> > What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
>>
>> I vote for ?lighthouse. ?I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
>> Lighthouse is better than all. ?It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
>> impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
>
> How is it different to Mantis then?

The most obvious thing is a much nicer UI.  You can tag bugs to
categorize them, and it makes it easy to specify relationships between
bugs - you just mention them, like "Depends on #234" - it will create
a by-directional link.

> Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?

It has an API, and there is a conduit for Trac, but none for Mantis
that I'm aware of, so we'd probably need to hack together a script.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
> > Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
> > impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
>
> How is it different to Mantis then?
>
> Anyone else have an opinion?

Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the site)

If it is unfree, it doesn't look suitable as bugtracker for a censorship free 
network to me. 

Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific 
entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity 
might be at the moment. 

I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though "oh well, it's 
not really integral for freenet". But the bugtracker is integral, and relying 
on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Daniel Cheng]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Matthew
Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>  wrote:
>> > What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
>>
>> I vote for ?lighthouse. ?I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
>> Lighthouse is better than all. ?It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
>> impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
>
> How is it different to Mantis then?
>
> Anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?
>>

Does lighthouse have "related bugs" or other duplicated bugs fields?

[...]

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
  I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
  Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
  impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.

 How is it different to Mantis then?

 Anyone else have an opinion?

Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the site)

If it is unfree, it doesn't look suitable as bugtracker for a censorship free 
network to me. 

Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific 
entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity 
might be at the moment. 

I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though oh well, it's 
not really integral for freenet. But the bugtracker is integral, and relying 
on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 05 June 2009 00:59:09 Daniel Cheng wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Matthew
 Toselandt...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
  On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
  On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
  t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
   What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
 
  I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
  Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
  impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
 
  How is it different to Mantis then?
 
  Anyone else have an opinion?
 
  Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?
 
 
 Does lighthouse have related bugs or other duplicated bugs fields?

Or freeform HTML into which these could be converted, as with Trac?
 
 [...]

Other important features?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 05 June 2009 07:54:08 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
 On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
   I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
   Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
   impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
 
  How is it different to Mantis then?
 
  Anyone else have an opinion?
 
 Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the site)

No. :|
 
 If it is unfree, it doesn't look suitable as bugtracker for a censorship free 
 network to me. 
 
 Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific 
 entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity 
 might be at the moment. 
 
 I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though oh well, it's 
 not really integral for freenet. But the bugtracker is integral, and relying 
 on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous. 

Ideologically I agree, however we do need something hosted (mantis is a major 
pain to keep up to date manually and is in php so has security issues), and 
practically speaking MANTIS works but it is probably not the most helpful in 
terms of getting useful work done. We could get free hosting for Trac, but it 
may be tricky to import bugs as Trac doesn't have support for dependancies 
between bugs - presumably a conversion script would just put them into the 
HTML/wiki markup for the bug...
 
 Best wishes, 
 Arne


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Matthew
Toselandt...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
 On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
 t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
  What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?

 I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
 Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
 impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.

 How is it different to Mantis then?

The most obvious thing is a much nicer UI.  You can tag bugs to
categorize them, and it makes it easy to specify relationships between
bugs - you just mention them, like Depends on #234 - it will create
a by-directional link.

 Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?

It has an API, and there is a conduit for Trac, but none for Mantis
that I'm aware of, so we'd probably need to hack together a script.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Matthew
Toselandt...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
 On Friday 05 June 2009 07:54:08 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
 On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
   I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
   Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
   impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
 
  How is it different to Mantis then?
 
  Anyone else have an opinion?

 Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the 
 site)

 No. :|

Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Arne Babenhauserheidearne_...@web.de wrote:
 On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
  I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
  Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
  impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.

 How is it different to Mantis then?

 Anyone else have an opinion?

 Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the site)

It is free as in beer for open source projects, so yes.

 Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific
 entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity
 might be at the moment.

Its only a bugtracker.  If they were to suddenly go evil (which they
have no incentive to do) then it would be an annoyance, but not a
disaster - we'd just move elsewhere.

 I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though oh well, it's
 not really integral for freenet. But the bugtracker is integral, and relying
 on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous.

Not if:

1) they have no incentive to hurt us, quite the opposite, we'd bring
positive attention to them

2) they only have our bugs, even in the worst case the worse thing
they could do is inconvenience us

The reality is that we need to outsource this stuff, we've tried
hosting our own tools and it soaked up a large amount of time, left us
extremely dependent on Nextgens (who no-longer wants this role), and
cost quite a bit of $$$.  All of these things are dangerous and bad
for the project in very measurable ways.

Much better to let our tools be managed by people exclusively focused
on the task, especially when its free (as Lighthouse is).

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 05 June 2009 23:43:12 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Matthew
 Toselandt...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
  On Friday 05 June 2009 07:54:08 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
  On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
  
   How is it different to Mantis then?
  
   Anyone else have an opinion?
 
  Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the 
  site)
 
  No. :|
 
 Yes it is, its free for open source projects, see
 http://sera.lighthouseapp.com/plans

That is definitely not what he meant!
 
 If it is unfree, it doesn't look suitable as bugtracker for a censorship free 
 network to me. 
 
 Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific 
 entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity 
 might be at the moment. 
 
 I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though oh well, it's 
 not really integral for freenet. But the bugtracker is integral, and relying 
 on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 05 June 2009 23:49:42 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Arne Babenhauserheidearne_...@web.de wrote:
  On Thursday, 4. June 2009 20:02:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
   I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
   Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
   impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.
 
  How is it different to Mantis then?
 
  Anyone else have an opinion?
 
  Is it free? (I couldn't get that information from my first glance on the 
  site)
 
 It is free as in beer for open source projects, so yes.
 
  Proprietary solutions allow censorship *by design*, because some specific
  entity controls what the system does - no matter how benevolent that entity
  might be at the moment.
 
 Its only a bugtracker.  If they were to suddenly go evil (which they
 have no incentive to do) then it would be an annoyance, but not a
 disaster - we'd just move elsewhere.

It would be a MAJOR annoyance, but yes it would probably be possible with, 
hopefully, a few hours to a few days work, to convert backed up bugs to another 
bug tracker.
 
  I already had that feeling about uservoice, but there I though oh well, 
  it's
  not really integral for freenet. But the bugtracker is integral, and 
  relying
  on a proprietary solution for an integral part of freenet is dangerous.
 
 Not if:
 
 1) they have no incentive to hurt us, quite the opposite, we'd bring
 positive attention to them
 
 2) they only have our bugs, even in the worst case the worse thing
 they could do is inconvenience us
 
 The reality is that we need to outsource this stuff, we've tried
 hosting our own tools and it soaked up a large amount of time, left us
 extremely dependent on Nextgens (who no-longer wants this role), and
 cost quite a bit of $$$.  All of these things are dangerous and bad
 for the project in very measurable ways.
 
 Much better to let our tools be managed by people exclusively focused
 on the task, especially when its free (as Lighthouse is).

Well, there are other options. Sourceforge and others run free Trac instances, 
for example. And migrating our existing bugs to them will be no more difficult 
than migrating them to Lighthouse in all likelihood: It will be a major PITA in 
any case IMHO, but it's that or run it on shared hosting, probably having to 
keep it up to date ourselves, although with luck we might be able to migrate it 
to a managed mantis on e.g. godaddy.

Why is Lighthouse better than Mantis or Trac, both of which we could get from 
sourceforge? Mantis has the clear advantage that we know it. If Lighthouse does 
exactly the same as Mantis and is slightly prettier, for example, there is 
little point in changing. On the other hand, if it is significantly easier for 
users to report bugs, that would be a good reason to consider it, provided that 
we can migrate our existing bugs (which I see no evidence of so far), and 
provided that it provides comparable features.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Matthew
Toselandt...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
 Why is Lighthouse better than Mantis or Trac, both of which we could get from 
 sourceforge? Mantis has the clear advantage that we know it. If Lighthouse 
 does exactly the same as Mantis and is slightly prettier, for example, there 
 is little point in changing. On the other hand, if it is significantly easier 
 for users to report bugs, that would be a good reason to consider it, 
 provided that we can migrate our existing bugs (which I see no evidence of so 
 far), and provided that it provides comparable features.

I would say that Lighthouse will make it more likely that users will
report bugs.  It has an open friendly feel that, frankly, Mantis
doesn't.  But you should play with it yourself and form your own
opinion.

Ian.

--
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Daniel Cheng]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Ian Clarkei...@locut.us wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Matthew
 Toselandt...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
 On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
 t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
  What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?

 I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
 Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
 impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.

 How is it different to Mantis then?

 The most obvious thing is a much nicer UI.  You can tag bugs to
 categorize them, and it makes it easy to specify relationships between
 bugs - you just mention them, like Depends on #234 - it will create
 a by-directional link.

Sorry, not mantis got tags too.  -- just nobody but me is using it.


 Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?

 It has an API, and there is a conduit for Trac, but none for Mantis
 that I'm aware of, so we'd probably need to hack together a script.

There is a SOAP api.


 Ian.

 --
 Ian Clarke
 CEO, Uprizer Labs
 Email: i...@uprizer.com
 Ph: +1 512 422 3588
 Fax: +1 512 276 6674
 ___
 Devl mailing list
 Devl@freenetproject.org
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 04 June 2009 19:01:47 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 04 June 2009 15:51:31 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Essentially the problems are:
> > 
> > 1. Hosting the static web site and files. This includes web hosting, 
> > hosting big files, fixed redirects over SSL, etc. It may involve moving 
> > from https://checksums to somewhere else, but it will still have to include 
> > SSL.
> > 
> > This can be solved fairly easily with Google Apps and Google Web Apps and 
> > Google Release System, or can be solved with a very cheap paid hosting 
> > service.
> > 
> > 2. Hosting mailing lists.
> > 
> > Most likely this will be solved by using berlios. Hopefully they provide 
> > searchable archives, but arguably that isn't our problem as many third 
> > parties do this already.
> > 
> > 3. The bug tracker.
> > 
> > This is a big one. MANTIS has some serious disadvantages - it is a pain to 
> > maintain, it is written in php and therefore has security issues. And other 
> > bug trackers might very well be better at helping developers to get their 
> > job done. Mantis can be hosted (by sourceforge or by godaddy), but it is 
> > not clear whether it will be possible to import existing data. Or it can be 
> > manually maintained on any paid-for php+database web hosting service, which 
> > we don't want to do if we can avoid it.
> > 
> > IMHO it is important that we keep the existing data. On the other hand I 
> > might support keeping it in some static form and using a new bug tracker, 
> > if a new bug tracker was demonstrably better.
> > 
> > What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
> > 
> > 4. The wikis.
> > 
> > We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It 
> > is highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts 
> > managed Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or 
> > start again. Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not 
> > doing so results in significant new work having to be done.
> > 
> > We need to decide on #3 and #4, IMHO these are the real blockers. #1 can be 
> > solved, but I don't think it makes sense to try to solve it until we have 
> > decided what we are going to do about #3 and #4 because it will influence 
> > the architecture of the solution to #1.
> > 
> > I would also like to point out that we've spent a lot of time on this 
> > already!
> > 
> Another hosting suggestion (this is interesting because it solves 1, 2, and 
> 4; it was recommended by several people on #freenet):
> 
> Dreamhost VPS. This is shared hosting in that we don't have root and they 
> keep all the stuff up to date, but with a vserver, so it has more resources. 
> It includes Mailman, as well as MediaWiki and obviously static web / php / 
> mysql.
> 
> One caveat is it is "unlimited". That means they may throttle you or pull the 
> plug. Zero3 talked to them, and apparently we'd be fine with a VPS, on the 
> basis that we use <200GB/mo mostly but approx 800GB in a slashdot month. IMHO 
> 100,000 downloads is well over what we've had recently for a release...
> 
> Costs would be a little higher than most deals we have considered so far, but 
> the basic package is free for 501(c)(3)'s as long as we can provide our 
> 501(c)(3) determination letter. Hopefully they would give us the basic shared 
> hosting cost for free and only charge the rest.
> 
> $9.95/mo (1 year contract, cancel within the first 97 days)  for basic 
> hosting (this part may be free because we're a nonprofit)
> $15.00/mo (Virtual Private Server with 150MB of RAM)
> $3.95/mo (Unique IP Address) (Zero3 may be able to give us a promotional code 
> avoiding this, although it probably can't be combined with non-profit hosting)
> 
> So $28.80/mo, $18.85/mo if they let us off the basic hosting cost due to 
> being a nonprofit. Assuming 150MB of RAM is enough. It would be overkill for 
> static web hosting and downloads, whether it would be enough for the wiki and 
> the bug tracker as well is uncertain.
> 
They have confirmed they will let us off the basic hosting cost, so $18.95/mo. 
If resource usage is a problem, we could bump it up (on the fly) to 1GB when we 
expect a slashdot, and pull it back down before the month ends. During that 
month the cost would be about what we pay for emu now - or rather, our half of 
what is paid for emu (ian pays half). The rest of the time it is 6 times less 
than we pay now. And there is much less administrative overhead.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
>  wrote:
> > What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
> 
> I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
> Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
> impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.

How is it different to Mantis then?

Anyone else have an opinion?

Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?
> 
> Ian.
> 
> > 4. The wikis.
> >
> > We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It 
> > is highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts 
> > managed Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or 
> > start again. Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not 
> > doing so results in significant new work having to be done.
> 
> Probably best to go with whatever is the most standard, which is
> probably MediaWiki (that is the Wikipedia one, right?).

Agreed. Hopefully importing won't be a big problem...
> 
> Ian.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 04 June 2009 15:51:31 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Essentially the problems are:
> 
> 1. Hosting the static web site and files. This includes web hosting, hosting 
> big files, fixed redirects over SSL, etc. It may involve moving from 
> https://checksums to somewhere else, but it will still have to include SSL.
> 
> This can be solved fairly easily with Google Apps and Google Web Apps and 
> Google Release System, or can be solved with a very cheap paid hosting 
> service.
> 
> 2. Hosting mailing lists.
> 
> Most likely this will be solved by using berlios. Hopefully they provide 
> searchable archives, but arguably that isn't our problem as many third 
> parties do this already.
> 
> 3. The bug tracker.
> 
> This is a big one. MANTIS has some serious disadvantages - it is a pain to 
> maintain, it is written in php and therefore has security issues. And other 
> bug trackers might very well be better at helping developers to get their job 
> done. Mantis can be hosted (by sourceforge or by godaddy), but it is not 
> clear whether it will be possible to import existing data. Or it can be 
> manually maintained on any paid-for php+database web hosting service, which 
> we don't want to do if we can avoid it.
> 
> IMHO it is important that we keep the existing data. On the other hand I 
> might support keeping it in some static form and using a new bug tracker, if 
> a new bug tracker was demonstrably better.
> 
> What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
> 
> 4. The wikis.
> 
> We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It is 
> highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts managed 
> Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or start again. 
> Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not doing so results 
> in significant new work having to be done.
> 
> We need to decide on #3 and #4, IMHO these are the real blockers. #1 can be 
> solved, but I don't think it makes sense to try to solve it until we have 
> decided what we are going to do about #3 and #4 because it will influence the 
> architecture of the solution to #1.
> 
> I would also like to point out that we've spent a lot of time on this already!
> 
Another hosting suggestion (this is interesting because it solves 1, 2, and 4; 
it was recommended by several people on #freenet):

Dreamhost VPS. This is shared hosting in that we don't have root and they keep 
all the stuff up to date, but with a vserver, so it has more resources. It 
includes Mailman, as well as MediaWiki and obviously static web / php / mysql.

One caveat is it is "unlimited". That means they may throttle you or pull the 
plug. Zero3 talked to them, and apparently we'd be fine with a VPS, on the 
basis that we use <200GB/mo mostly but approx 800GB in a slashdot month. IMHO 
100,000 downloads is well over what we've had recently for a release...

Costs would be a little higher than most deals we have considered so far, but 
the basic package is free for 501(c)(3)'s as long as we can provide our 
501(c)(3) determination letter. Hopefully they would give us the basic shared 
hosting cost for free and only charge the rest.

$9.95/mo (1 year contract, cancel within the first 97 days)  for basic hosting 
(this part may be free because we're a nonprofit)
$15.00/mo (Virtual Private Server with 150MB of RAM)
$3.95/mo (Unique IP Address) (Zero3 may be able to give us a promotional code 
avoiding this, although it probably can't be combined with non-profit hosting)

So $28.80/mo, $18.85/mo if they let us off the basic hosting cost due to being 
a nonprofit. Assuming 150MB of RAM is enough. It would be overkill for static 
web hosting and downloads, whether it would be enough for the wiki and the bug 
tracker as well is uncertain.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

Essentially the problems are:

1. Hosting the static web site and files. This includes web hosting, hosting 
big files, fixed redirects over SSL, etc. It may involve moving from 
https://checksums to somewhere else, but it will still have to include SSL.

This can be solved fairly easily with Google Apps and Google Web Apps and 
Google Release System, or can be solved with a very cheap paid hosting service.

2. Hosting mailing lists.

Most likely this will be solved by using berlios. Hopefully they provide 
searchable archives, but arguably that isn't our problem as many third parties 
do this already.

3. The bug tracker.

This is a big one. MANTIS has some serious disadvantages - it is a pain to 
maintain, it is written in php and therefore has security issues. And other bug 
trackers might very well be better at helping developers to get their job done. 
Mantis can be hosted (by sourceforge or by godaddy), but it is not clear 
whether it will be possible to import existing data. Or it can be manually 
maintained on any paid-for php+database web hosting service, which we don't 
want to do if we can avoid it.

IMHO it is important that we keep the existing data. On the other hand I might 
support keeping it in some static form and using a new bug tracker, if a new 
bug tracker was demonstrably better.

What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?

4. The wikis.

We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It is 
highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts managed 
Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or start again. 
Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not doing so results in 
significant new work having to be done.

We need to decide on #3 and #4, IMHO these are the real blockers. #1 can be 
solved, but I don't think it makes sense to try to solve it until we have 
decided what we are going to do about #3 and #4 because it will influence the 
architecture of the solution to #1.

I would also like to point out that we've spent a lot of time on this already!
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
 wrote:
> What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?

I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.

Ian.

> 4. The wikis.
>
> We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It is 
> highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts managed 
> Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or start again. 
> Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not doing so results 
> in significant new work having to be done.

Probably best to go with whatever is the most standard, which is
probably MediaWiki (that is the Wikipedia one, right?).

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674

[freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

Essentially the problems are:

1. Hosting the static web site and files. This includes web hosting, hosting 
big files, fixed redirects over SSL, etc. It may involve moving from 
https://checksums to somewhere else, but it will still have to include SSL.

This can be solved fairly easily with Google Apps and Google Web Apps and 
Google Release System, or can be solved with a very cheap paid hosting service.

2. Hosting mailing lists.

Most likely this will be solved by using berlios. Hopefully they provide 
searchable archives, but arguably that isn't our problem as many third parties 
do this already.

3. The bug tracker.

This is a big one. MANTIS has some serious disadvantages - it is a pain to 
maintain, it is written in php and therefore has security issues. And other bug 
trackers might very well be better at helping developers to get their job done. 
Mantis can be hosted (by sourceforge or by godaddy), but it is not clear 
whether it will be possible to import existing data. Or it can be manually 
maintained on any paid-for php+database web hosting service, which we don't 
want to do if we can avoid it.

IMHO it is important that we keep the existing data. On the other hand I might 
support keeping it in some static form and using a new bug tracker, if a new 
bug tracker was demonstrably better.

What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?

4. The wikis.

We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It is 
highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts managed 
Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or start again. 
Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not doing so results in 
significant new work having to be done.

We need to decide on #3 and #4, IMHO these are the real blockers. #1 can be 
solved, but I don't think it makes sense to try to solve it until we have 
decided what we are going to do about #3 and #4 because it will influence the 
architecture of the solution to #1.

I would also like to point out that we've spent a lot of time on this already!


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Ian Clarke]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
 What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?

I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.

Ian.

 4. The wikis.

 We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It is 
 highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts managed 
 Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or start again. 
 Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not doing so results 
 in significant new work having to be done.

Probably best to go with whatever is the most standard, which is
probably MediaWiki (that is the Wikipedia one, right?).

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 04 June 2009 15:51:31 Matthew Toseland wrote:
 Essentially the problems are:
 
 1. Hosting the static web site and files. This includes web hosting, hosting 
 big files, fixed redirects over SSL, etc. It may involve moving from 
 https://checksums to somewhere else, but it will still have to include SSL.
 
 This can be solved fairly easily with Google Apps and Google Web Apps and 
 Google Release System, or can be solved with a very cheap paid hosting 
 service.
 
 2. Hosting mailing lists.
 
 Most likely this will be solved by using berlios. Hopefully they provide 
 searchable archives, but arguably that isn't our problem as many third 
 parties do this already.
 
 3. The bug tracker.
 
 This is a big one. MANTIS has some serious disadvantages - it is a pain to 
 maintain, it is written in php and therefore has security issues. And other 
 bug trackers might very well be better at helping developers to get their job 
 done. Mantis can be hosted (by sourceforge or by godaddy), but it is not 
 clear whether it will be possible to import existing data. Or it can be 
 manually maintained on any paid-for php+database web hosting service, which 
 we don't want to do if we can avoid it.
 
 IMHO it is important that we keep the existing data. On the other hand I 
 might support keeping it in some static form and using a new bug tracker, if 
 a new bug tracker was demonstrably better.
 
 What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
 
 4. The wikis.
 
 We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It is 
 highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts managed 
 Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or start again. 
 Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not doing so results 
 in significant new work having to be done.
 
 We need to decide on #3 and #4, IMHO these are the real blockers. #1 can be 
 solved, but I don't think it makes sense to try to solve it until we have 
 decided what we are going to do about #3 and #4 because it will influence the 
 architecture of the solution to #1.
 
 I would also like to point out that we've spent a lot of time on this already!
 
Another hosting suggestion (this is interesting because it solves 1, 2, and 4; 
it was recommended by several people on #freenet):

Dreamhost VPS. This is shared hosting in that we don't have root and they keep 
all the stuff up to date, but with a vserver, so it has more resources. It 
includes Mailman, as well as MediaWiki and obviously static web / php / mysql.

One caveat is it is unlimited. That means they may throttle you or pull the 
plug. Zero3 talked to them, and apparently we'd be fine with a VPS, on the 
basis that we use 200GB/mo mostly but approx 800GB in a slashdot month. IMHO 
100,000 downloads is well over what we've had recently for a release...

Costs would be a little higher than most deals we have considered so far, but 
the basic package is free for 501(c)(3)'s as long as we can provide our 
501(c)(3) determination letter. Hopefully they would give us the basic shared 
hosting cost for free and only charge the rest.

$9.95/mo (1 year contract, cancel within the first 97 days)  for basic hosting 
(this part may be free because we're a nonprofit)
$15.00/mo (Virtual Private Server with 150MB of RAM)
$3.95/mo (Unique IP Address) (Zero3 may be able to give us a promotional code 
avoiding this, although it probably can't be combined with non-profit hosting)

So $28.80/mo, $18.85/mo if they let us off the basic hosting cost due to being 
a nonprofit. Assuming 150MB of RAM is enough. It would be overkill for static 
web hosting and downloads, whether it would be enough for the wiki and the bug 
tracker as well is uncertain.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
 t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
  What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
 
 I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
 Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
 impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.

How is it different to Mantis then?

Anyone else have an opinion?

Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?
 
 Ian.
 
  4. The wikis.
 
  We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It 
  is highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts 
  managed Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or 
  start again. Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not 
  doing so results in significant new work having to be done.
 
 Probably best to go with whatever is the most standard, which is
 probably MediaWiki (that is the Wikipedia one, right?).

Agreed. Hopefully importing won't be a big problem...
 
 Ian.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 04 June 2009 19:01:47 Matthew Toseland wrote:
 On Thursday 04 June 2009 15:51:31 Matthew Toseland wrote:
  Essentially the problems are:
  
  1. Hosting the static web site and files. This includes web hosting, 
  hosting big files, fixed redirects over SSL, etc. It may involve moving 
  from https://checksums to somewhere else, but it will still have to include 
  SSL.
  
  This can be solved fairly easily with Google Apps and Google Web Apps and 
  Google Release System, or can be solved with a very cheap paid hosting 
  service.
  
  2. Hosting mailing lists.
  
  Most likely this will be solved by using berlios. Hopefully they provide 
  searchable archives, but arguably that isn't our problem as many third 
  parties do this already.
  
  3. The bug tracker.
  
  This is a big one. MANTIS has some serious disadvantages - it is a pain to 
  maintain, it is written in php and therefore has security issues. And other 
  bug trackers might very well be better at helping developers to get their 
  job done. Mantis can be hosted (by sourceforge or by godaddy), but it is 
  not clear whether it will be possible to import existing data. Or it can be 
  manually maintained on any paid-for php+database web hosting service, which 
  we don't want to do if we can avoid it.
  
  IMHO it is important that we keep the existing data. On the other hand I 
  might support keeping it in some static form and using a new bug tracker, 
  if a new bug tracker was demonstrably better.
  
  What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?
  
  4. The wikis.
  
  We have a French wiki using MediaWiki and an English wiki using Wikka. It 
  is highly unlikely we will find anywhere, free or otherwise, that hosts 
  managed Wikka, so we will probably have to convert it to MediaWiki - or 
  start again. Again, IMHO it is important to keep existing content as not 
  doing so results in significant new work having to be done.
  
  We need to decide on #3 and #4, IMHO these are the real blockers. #1 can be 
  solved, but I don't think it makes sense to try to solve it until we have 
  decided what we are going to do about #3 and #4 because it will influence 
  the architecture of the solution to #1.
  
  I would also like to point out that we've spent a lot of time on this 
  already!
  
 Another hosting suggestion (this is interesting because it solves 1, 2, and 
 4; it was recommended by several people on #freenet):
 
 Dreamhost VPS. This is shared hosting in that we don't have root and they 
 keep all the stuff up to date, but with a vserver, so it has more resources. 
 It includes Mailman, as well as MediaWiki and obviously static web / php / 
 mysql.
 
 One caveat is it is unlimited. That means they may throttle you or pull the 
 plug. Zero3 talked to them, and apparently we'd be fine with a VPS, on the 
 basis that we use 200GB/mo mostly but approx 800GB in a slashdot month. IMHO 
 100,000 downloads is well over what we've had recently for a release...
 
 Costs would be a little higher than most deals we have considered so far, but 
 the basic package is free for 501(c)(3)'s as long as we can provide our 
 501(c)(3) determination letter. Hopefully they would give us the basic shared 
 hosting cost for free and only charge the rest.
 
 $9.95/mo (1 year contract, cancel within the first 97 days)  for basic 
 hosting (this part may be free because we're a nonprofit)
 $15.00/mo (Virtual Private Server with 150MB of RAM)
 $3.95/mo (Unique IP Address) (Zero3 may be able to give us a promotional code 
 avoiding this, although it probably can't be combined with non-profit hosting)
 
 So $28.80/mo, $18.85/mo if they let us off the basic hosting cost due to 
 being a nonprofit. Assuming 150MB of RAM is enough. It would be overkill for 
 static web hosting and downloads, whether it would be enough for the wiki and 
 the bug tracker as well is uncertain.
 
They have confirmed they will let us off the basic hosting cost, so $18.95/mo. 
If resource usage is a problem, we could bump it up (on the fly) to 1GB when we 
expect a slashdot, and pull it back down before the month ends. During that 
month the cost would be about what we pay for emu now - or rather, our half of 
what is paid for emu (ian pays half). The rest of the time it is 6 times less 
than we pay now. And there is much less administrative overhead.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Trying to move forward on getting rid of emu

[Daniel Cheng]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Matthew
Toselandt...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
 On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:08:22 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland
 t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
  What bug tracker should we use? Trac? Jira? Lighthouse? Something else?

 I vote for  lighthouse.  I've used Mantis, Trac, and Fogbugz, and
 Lighthouse is better than all.  It is simple, user friendly, doesn't
 impose any particular way of working, and it has a flexible API.

 How is it different to Mantis then?

 Anyone else have an opinion?

 Is there any chance of importing our existing bugs into Lighthouse?


Does lighthouse have related bugs or other duplicated bugs fields?

[...]
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl