incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] RE: SVN and bringing the total end-to-end OOo project under Configuration Management
Date Tue, 30 Aug 2011 06:12:15 GMT

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.

> 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 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 URI.
> Am I getting warmer?



> - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Ellison [] 
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 18:13
> To:
> Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RE: SVN and bringing the total end-to-end OOo project under Configuration
> 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 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