incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terry Ellison <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] RE: SVN and bringing the total end-to-end OOo project under Configuration Management
Date Tue, 30 Aug 2011 01:13:25 GMT

I just want to emphasise one of the key points that I made in my 
original post and which seems to have got lost in the subsequent 
dialogue.  I differentiated between the "application" -- that is the S/W 
configuration based on the customisation of a FLOSS package -- which 
supports a service, say the forums, and the "content" which it contains.

    *  It is the *application* that needs to be brought under CM.  Svn 
is an appropriate tool to use for this, as it Git.  It is these 
applications /services that I would wish to bring under CM as is the 
code base (and core documentation, etc.)

    * The Logical Data Model (LDM) for the *content*  and the usage 
patterns are so far removed from that of svn and its operational sweet 
spot, that any thought of attempting to force such content into svn 
would be folly IMHO because:

       +   As far as the forums go, the post rate on the forums probably 
dominate all other commits on all Apache svn's combined.  There is no 
practical value in attempting to maintain versioning within or layered 
over the phpBB.

       +   Ditto any real rich and functional wiki.  As far as I can 
see, the only way that the "cwiki over svn" works at all is that the 
aggregate update rates to the cwiki are rather low.  MediaWiki has a 
rich and -- in my opinion at least for wiki content -- superior 
versioning and audit system compared to svn.  Some things work well 
using an RDBMS repository and some a file repository.  In general a file 
hierarchy makes a crap database, so why force this wiki content back 
onto an svn model?

These technical reasons are quite orthogonal to the policy and licensing 
issues in the previous discussions on this thread.

Regards Terry

On 29/08/11 22:09, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I've been mulling this over and I am wondering about another way to look at the problem,
building on Eike's suggestion too.
> This is not a proposal.  It is too high-level and not concrete enough with a viable roadmap.
 We need to see if we can find a consensus in principle and then see what kind of roadmap
would have continue in operation.  The goal is as  little disruption
as necessary to achieve rehosting and sustained operation on behalf of the extended community
and also create an effective firewall between the Apache project and non-Apache community
efforts such as the NLC activities.
>   - Dennis
> I think the community material should not be underneath any of the existing
subtrees (not site, not trunk, etc.).
> My suggestion is that we use one or more new subtrees. ...<snip>

View raw message