> From: John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I agree with Stephen's comments. Importing issues is not yet done, > though it might be soon. I don't know how well it might work with > issues exported from an an older beta though. I don't expect that jon > will be writing any transformations. As far as import of bugzilla > issues, i think that will have to be a manual process. The dtd that > ships with bugzilla does not correspond to the actual xml output which > varies from version to version. > > john mcnally That's fine. In the proposal I have indicated that the bugzilla issues will be transferred manually. I am seeking clarification from Stephen on the -1 he gave to the proposals regarding the use of the existing un-maintained issues.apache.org/scarab instance by the OJB project. Here is the relevant text:
>>> Scott E.: >>> * Proposed strategy: issues.apache.org/scarab will exist solely for use by >>> the OJB guys. If they decide to move over to scarab.werken.com then this >>> scarab instance should be decommissioned. >>> >> Stephen H.: >> -1, it might be a pain at first, but I think they would come to enjoy a >> maintained, up to date version of Scarab. > > Scott E.: > Not sure what you mean here Stephen. The reason I am suggesting they > migrate to the werken instance is so that they do gain the benefits of the > maintained and up-to-date Scarab install (as opposed to the one they are > using which may gradually succumb to entropy). Bob has indicated that we > could point an apache domain name at the werken scarab install - this would > be excellent as it would reduce some potential confusion and will allow for > an easy transition back to an apache hosted install if this becomes > necessary at any stage in the future. In reality this is totally in the hands of the OJB guys - the proposal is basically for the status quo, but pointing out to them that a maintained scarab instance is available if they would like to transfer to it. Other than that all I am proposing is that we de-emphasise the un-maintained apache scarab instance to ensure that any projects that adopt scarab in the future end up on the maintained instance at werken.com (preferably with an apache.org domain name so that it is easy to migrate it back if this becomes necessary in the future). If I can get a clear +1 from Stephen and John (and obviously no -1's from elsewhere) I will kick this process off ASAP. Within the last two hours two people have posted turbine issues to bugzilla - one of which is just so totally ironic it is very funny: > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12808 > > Broken web site link to issue tracker > > On http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/project-info.html the "Issue Tracking" > link points to http://nagoya.apache.org:8080/scarab/servlet/scarab/ > This is incorrect. Scarab appears to be running on port 80, not 8080, so the > link just gives "Server not found" errors. So someone has used bugzilla to point out that the url to the apache scarab install is incorrect for the turbine-site project. I am pushing for a turbine 2.2 release, which means I am also pushing for a torque 3.0 release. This is basically going to mean an official (whatever that means) feature freeze coupled with rigorous follow-up of any problems that people are encountering with the betas. Getting the issue tracking in order is absolutely essential to this process. Cheers, Scott -- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
