On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 10:33 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >> On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 11/07/2012 09:59 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Actually I wasn't talking about hosting, but about having their (external >>> repositories of contributing individuals/organizations that is not >>> xwiki-contrib) repositories proxied in XWiki's nexus so that they are found >>> by the extension manager with the default configuration. >> I know :) I'm talking about the same thing! Our Nexus proxies several repos >> including Maven Central. So if you push your artifact in Sonatype's OSS repo >> then you get it in XWiki's Extension Manager ;) > > Yes but one could still want it in its own repos and not sonatype. Sure but then it's not our problem and I personally don't agree about proxying other people's remote repos (too much maintenance and too dangerous). FYI Maven Central stopped doing this after they had problems with it. > BTW we're not proxying sonatype repos yet AFAIK. Sonatype's repos are synced to central AFAIK. And for the same reason we shouldn't proxy any Sonatype repo. -Vincent > Jerome > >> >> -Vincent >> >>> Reserving hosting on the maven repos to xwiki-contrib is fine. >>> >>> Jerome >>> >>>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
