On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 09:03 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >> On Nov 5, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 10/23/2012 09:33 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>> On Oct 23, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> This should have been for devs Envoyé de mon iPhone Début du message >>>>> transféré : >>>>>> Expéditeur: Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> Date: 23 octobre 2012 >>>>>> 09:19:55 UTC+02:00 Destinataire: XWiki Users <[email protected]> Objet: >>>>>> Github tracker. was: Re: [xwiki-users] New Realtime collaborative >>>>>> editing extension. Just a quick. You seem to introduce a practice to use >>>>>> the github tracker instead of xwiki.org jira's Not sure it's a good >>>>>> thing. I'm sure Vincent will agree >>>> Well, what I would prefer personally is that contrib projects be in the >>>> xwiki-contrib organization and use the XWiki tools (wiki, jira, etc). The >>>> reason is that this allows: * to group together projects around XWiki >>>> (they're not scattered everywhere on the web and harder to find) * make it >>>> a neutral location for people to collaborate together on xwiki projects. >>>> That's a key element to contribution IMO * is more long term. If you stop >>>> working on the project it's not going to be a dead project in someone's >>>> github repo and it'll have more chance of being maintained/seen in the >>>> xwiki-contrib repo I know Jerome also puts his contributions in his own >>>> github project and I had the same reservation about it. We can't force >>>> anyone of course since this is a contribution but it's more collaborative >>>> to make them xwiki-contrib project, following the rules defined at >>>> http://contrib.xwiki.org I understand you may want to beef up your github >>>> profile but for collaboration I feel the xwiki-contrib is better with the >>>> 2 arguments listed above. Jerome, Caleb let me know what you think. >>> >>> Hi Vincent, >>> >>> This is a interesting topic and there are several aspects to it. >>> >>> For me the "discoverability" argument for having projects on >>> https://github.com/xwiki-contribdoes not make much sense. The centralized >>> place for projects around XWiki is http://extensions.xwiki.org, not github. >>> There's the "view source" button that tells where the sources are. Github >>> is a convenience here, and it's always possible to "copy" (or fork) a >>> project in xwiki-contrib, for whatever reason (original project not active, >>> etc.). >>> >>> That being said I understand why you think it's better to have as much >>> projects as possible under the xwiki-contrib umbrella : it makes it a >>> one-stop shop with the same tools, same workflow, same permissions, etc. >>> >>> Here are the arguments I see for why one contributor or contributing >>> organization would want to host its projects itself : >>> - use of own tools and own workflow (github issues vs. JIRA for example). >>> - it allows a contributor or contributing organization to have it's own >>> place to centralize its contribution(s) (the "beef up" argument as you >>> say). I think this can make sense in some circonstances, especially for >>> contributing organizations (companies for example). >>> >>> The bottom line comes down to : what rules do we want for using the >>> "org.xwiki.contrib" groupId and tools (maven repos, CI, etc.) ? >>> If we want a rule saying that the project should be hosted on >>> github.com/xwiki-contrib/ then that's that, and I think it's fair. We just >>> have to decide on it (right now there is no such rule according to >>> http://contrib.xwiki.org/). >> My take on this: >> >> * Either the project is a xwiki-contrib project and then it gets the tools >> and niceties included for being an xwiki-contrib project (jira, CI, web >> site, ability to collaborate equally between contributors, email >> notifications on xwiki lists, sonar dashboard coming soon, maven remote >> repository, etc) or it's not and then it uses whatever tools it wants but >> not xwiki's project resources. It seems fair to me. >> * If we agree we should then update contrib.xwiki.org to explain better all >> that the user will get by being an xwiki-contrib project and explain the >> alternative. And also explain that if the user wants to host it himself then >> give him some direction for the maven groupid/artifactid that he should or >> rather the ones he shouldn't use since it's reserved (basicallty the rule is >> his groupid cannot start with org.xwiki, not sure if we want to also say >> that his artifact id shouldn't start with "xwiki-" as its done for maven >> plugins in apache land). >> >> WDYT? > > Makes sense to me. > > One thing to consider also is the fact projects outside contrib will play > less well with XWiki extension manager since they won't be in XWiki nexus > (unless the repository they are in is added to nexus). Personnally I think we > should allow contributing organization repositories being added in XWiki's > nexus so that it's not a differentiator. I mentioned that already in my reply when I said that xwiki-contrib projects get a maven remote repo. Re allowing external projects to be hosted in our remote maven repo, maybe but it's dangerous. We need some oversight of the project we host because we're then legally responsible for what we host. So we'd some way for people to request hosting and have manual operation. TBH I'm not sure if we should provide this since Sonatype already provides it for any open source project, see https://docs.sonatype.org/display/Repository/Sonatype+OSS+Maven+Repository+Usage+Guide They already have all the tools to verify that poms are correct and more so I don't think we should duplicate the effort. Right now, I'd say we only offer a remote maven repo for our own projects and we direct others to the Sonatype OSS repo. Thanks -Vincent > Jerome. > >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> Jerome >>> >>> >>>> Thanks -Vincent >>>>>> Ludovic Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 23 oct. 2012 à 04:17, Caleb James >>>>>> DeLisle <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>>> One other thing, please report the features which you want and what you >>>>>>> imagine as best on the github tracker, it's easier to close an issue as >>>>>>> "won't fix" than it is to remember an important issue which nobody >>>>>>> wrote down ;) Thanks Caleb On 10/22/2012 10:14 PM, Caleb James DeLisle >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, Thanks for the complement. I just updated it and fixed issue #1. >>>>>>>> Thanks for reporting it. Somehow showing who else is editing, showing >>>>>>>> where they are editing in the document and allowing the user to spawn >>>>>>>> a chat window with other editors on the page are all interesting >>>>>>>> possibilities. Right now I think the thing to do is decide where there >>>>>>>> is the most bang for your buck in terms of feature value and get an >>>>>>>> idea of what's most natural for the user. Thanks, Caleb On 10/19/2012 >>>>>>>> 07:59 AM, Ryszard Łach wrote: >>>>>>>>> Great work! It looks like good starting point to give xwiki the main >>>>>>>>> (at least for me) feature, that makes googledoc sometimes more >>>>>>>>> suitable for collaborative editing. It would be really great, if your >>>>>>>>> editor would show somehow, where the other editor (person) is now, >>>>>>>>> where is his cursor. Maybe a highlight (the whole line) showing the >>>>>>>>> other's cursor placement? Do you plan to work on such improvements? R. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
