I'm certainly biased toward starting a discussion with the people at apache. We should be looking at more efficient and productive code/project management and be trying to upgrade their systems to reflect this. If anyone else thinks this is a good strategy, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
-Andrew On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yuri basically hi the nail on the head here. The two main thing that we > would probably want to be working towards is the code migration and the web > site migration. However we have largely lost steam in both these regards. I > don't in any way mean to disrespect the had work of the apache folks, but it > seems to be the impression of a lot of the wave developers that the apache > infrastructure is inferior in some ways to what the wave developers have on > google-code. For example: > > Mercurial vs SVN > ----------------------- > > Seems like SVN is viewed a legacy and a step back from Hg. > > > Project Wiki / Site > -------------------------- > > Currently using Google Sites which has a much richer CMS interface which > handles images, html tables, sub pages, attachments. The Apache CMS is > functional, but is not on par with google sites. It also seems like it is > not being maintained going forward due to lack of time. > > > Reviewboard vs Reitveld > ----------------------------------- > > Many of the wave developers voiced an opinion that the strongly preferred > Reitveld over reviewboard. > > > So basically, as Yuri pointed out there have been some technical issues in > doing the migration, but I think the larger issue is that we are simply not > that motivated to do the migration because the end state looks less desirable > than the state we are in now. So it's been hard to get people to volunteer > their time to move us over. I think some of these issues are valid and we > should discuss them. If we REALLY feel like these infrastructure options are > hampering the growth of the project then I think we should start a discussion > with the Infra group at apache to raise our concerns. > > If anyone would like to help in any regard, that would be great. > > ~Michael > > On Aug 19, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Yuri Z wrote: > >> Michael should be following this mail list, so I guess he will respond as >> soon as he can. In any way his email is michael.macfad...@gmail.com. >> Regarding the migration status: >> Currently the issues migrated to Apache, however the source code is still at >> the old wave-protocol google-code based repository. >> The code migration got a bit delayed for two reasons as I see it: >> 1. The technical one. The technical aspect of converting Mercurial >> repository into Subversion is kind of challenging. There are a plenty of >> tools that allow to do the transition the other way (from SVN to Mercurial). >> I personally investigated this a bit and seems like it would require first >> to convert Hg to Git, the Git to SVN. >> 2. The convenience. Well, converting from mercurial to SVN is kind of >> downgrade, so there's little emotional motivation to do it. >> 3. The inertial. Currently we have working process to submit patches with >> tested tools and code review integration. Migration to SVN and the Review >> Board will have it's learning curve and honestly, possibly won't be better. >> >> Also, we will probably have to move most of the Wiki that currently resides >> also on google-code, but that's less urgent. >> >> 2011/8/19 Andrew Ragone <ajr9...@rit.edu> >> >>> Ok good to know. Is there a way we can reach out to him? >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Matt Richards <mricha...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> As far as I recall, I thought Michael MacFadden was taking the lead on >>>> infra >>>> related items. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Andrew Ragone <ajr9...@rit.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So the important questions are: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Who is the most knowledgeable with the current state of the project. >>>>> 2. Who are the primary leaders of the group. >>>>> >>>>> I wanna get the ball rolling on things again. We shouldn't just sit on >>>>> the sidelines waiting for google or whoever to finish things. >>>>> >>>>> -Andrew >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 18, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Matt Richards <mricha...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There was great momentum when Google was actively pushing the >>>> incubation >>>>>> status and active on the project as a whole. Now that Google has >>>> tapered >>>>> off >>>>>> (as I assumed they would), I'm not sure what the status of things are >>>> any >>>>>> more. Nor who has taken the rains of leading the movement toward >>> being >>>>> fully >>>>>> on Apache's infra. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro >>>>>> <zmy...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 What parts of the project are where right now? And how long >>> will >>>> it >>>>> be >>>>>>> until Apache has everything? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 17:47, Matt Richards <mricha...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've been kinda wondering the same thing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Andrew Ragone <ajr9...@rit.edu> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems there is a huge lag in migration of the Project to the >>>>>>>> incubator. >>>>>>>>> What is the status on this (eg. who has ownership of what) and >>> what >>>>> can >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>> to help migrate?! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Andrew >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> --Matt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> --Matt >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --Matt >>>> >>> >
