incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terry Ellison <ter...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] RE: SVN and bringing the total end-to-end OOo project under Configuration Management
Date Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:32:11 GMT
On 30/08/11 07:12, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> Oh, right. Thanks Terry,
>>
>> I forgot what the exact differentiation was. To the extent that we 
>> are maintaining software that is not ALv2 licensed or compatible, I 
>> would think that any SVN for it would appear to be "elsewhere" also.
>
> I think Apache Infrastructure is the place to ask - they are hosting 
> ooo-wiki and ooo-forum.
>
> What this may require is that several OOo PPMC members will need to 
> volunteer for Apache Infrastructure.

Since I am writing all the scripts and have developed the custom 
extensions, I have no problem granting whatever FLOSS licence is needed 
here -- at least for my work.

I am also a member of Apache Infrastructure.  Even here there is a role 
separation.  To do "root stuff" on a box, you must be granted that 
access by and participate in Apache Infrastructure, and the converse is 
also true: the infrastructure team expects this work to be sufficiently 
clearly defined and documented under its own svn infrastructure branch 
so that, in principle, any member of the infrastructure can take over 
such work.

However, working on the customisation of phpBB or MediaWiki doesn't 
require "root access" just normal ssh access, just the same way that we 
can all access people.apache.org, (except that to be a phpBB application 
maintainer on the ooo-forums box, you also need SSH access and to be a 
member of a mainainer's group).

Clearly this service-supporting software: e.g, the Ubuntu OS, the GNU 
toolset, phpBB, MediaWiki, MySQL, ... do not need to be ALv2, though the 
licence terms should not place constraints on any content.  The 
licensing of *content* is, in my view, quite disjoint from all this and 
is for the project to decide in consultation with the Apache legal 
people, etc., as we are doing.

So Rob is not championing the "correct view", nor is Dennis, nor I in 
this regard.   In my opinion there is no such thing as a "correct view" 
here, just as there is no such thing as "the one true religion".  Each 
is just the view of an individual PPMC member and has no greater weight 
per se than any other's.  Certainly declaiming to be the arbiter of 
authority on matters Apache doesn't make this so.  Project *consensus*, 
albeit within broad Apache guidelines,  surely operates here, and our 
debates should move to establish this consensus.

>
>>
>> So the content is still off wherever the engine is running.
>>
>> I assume there is the same differentiation for the wiki.
>>
>> I believe there *are* licensing issues on the forums and on the wikis 
>> with regard to their content and its contribution. I am hoping to 
>> minimize dealing with those by the forums and wikis still being 
>> served at openoffice.org domain URLs until we figure out how to 
>> evolve the licensing, registration, etc., business. I am sure some 
>> disruption can't be avoided, but if we can shrink the extent of that 
>> at the beginning, it would be wonderful.
>>
>> The same goes for the web site content, it seems to me, though in 
>> that case we may need to do what was done to have German language 
>> pages where they can be (essentially) served from an SVN at Apache, 
>> even if to an openoffice.org URI.
>>
>> Am I getting warmer?
>
> Quite.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Terry Ellison [mailto:Terry@ellisons.org.uk]
>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 18:13
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RE: SVN and bringing the total end-to-end OOo 
>> project under Configuration Management
>>
>> Dennis,
>>
>> 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 
>>> http://openoffice.org 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
>>>
>>> BASIC DIRECTION
>>>
>>> I think the community material should not be underneath any of the 
>>> existing svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo subtrees (not site, 
>>> not trunk, etc.).
>>>
>>> My suggestion is that we use one or more new subtrees. ...<snip>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message