Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <51030C8C.9000108@cord.dk>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:51:56 +0100
From: Daniel Gruno <rumble@cord.dk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org?
References: <50FB2BA0.2020906@cord.dk>
 <D0A0A31F-1798-45EA-8AF5-535ABD4D4489@webthing.com>
 <50FF12CC.5050504@cord.dk> <5101876F.4090605@evermeet.cx>
 <5101891E.3030406@cord.dk> <510190BC.4000405@evermeet.cx>
 <5101927F.3090703@cord.dk> <510198F5.1040900@evermeet.cx>
 <51025D5F.6050100@cord.dk> <51030988.9060606@evermeet.cx>
In-Reply-To: <51030988.9060606@evermeet.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 01/25/2013 11:39 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote:
> On 25.01.13 5:24 , Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> - Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two
>> years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to
>> submit their modules to this site.
> 
> I know, I don't have the right to vote, but I still would like to know, why
> you don't migrate the 'old' data to the new site?
> If you want to get rid of unmaintained modules this is one thing, but there
> might be modules on the old site that are still valid despite the fact that
> they haven't been touched within the last 2 years.
> With the 'old' data, you can at least populate all fields (except the long
> description).
> 
>> - We are, as always, looking for volunteers!! If you'd like to help out
>> managing the  modules.apache.org site, please do speak up. We will be
>> possibly adding some LDAP tie-ins later, making Apache committers
>> moderators by default, but that is for another thread to discuss in.
>> Currently, we will be only allowing Apache committers to apply as
>> moderators, but we will be having a discussion about that in the other
>> thread I'll start.
> 
> Ok, what does 'managing' the site mean? How many hours do you have to put in
> per week/month (just a ballpark)?
> I'd be interested.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
The old data is simply incompatible with the new system, and we have no
way of knowing which modules still exist except to to through them all
manually (mind you, this is a lot of records) and check. The new system
is based on a lot more parameters (such as tags, multiple release
versions, short and long descriptions, detailed author profiles,
component entries etc), which would throw every module from the old site
into a muddied "miscellaneous" category from which there would be no
escape, unless each author manually updated the records, which is
unlikely for the majority of the modules. Furthermore, we cannot migrate
the old userbase, as it's incompatible and severely outdated in terms of
security (I will not go into specifics, you will have to trust me on
this one), so the modules would not be able to be coupled with an
author, and thus no one would have access to update them, unless we
simply gave Carte Blanche to do so...which would require at least as
much effort as simply creating the module on the new site.

What I have proposed instead is that we contact any author who has
created/updated a module within the last two years, inviting them to
spend 2 minutes on the site, recreating their module information.


Managing the site means approving new modules as they arrive. The
process is quite simple:

1) A module is registered in the database
2) An email is sent to modules-dev@httpd.apache.org
3) Site admins verify that the module is not bogus
4) You click on an 'approve' or a 'reject' button, and that's it.
5) Authors are notified of approval or rejection of the module.

I'd estimate this to require between 5 minutes and half an hour per week
at most, maybe a bit more in the beginning.

With regards,
Daniel.