Great idea. This sort of structure will help us get developers to see where their work sits In the big picture
-----Original Message----- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Lokahi - Status On 5/3/07, Ruth DeBardeleben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I've enjoyed learning about community building here at Apachecon -- > we've had some good conversations we really ought to recap here on the > list. > > One of the things I picked up from Aaron Farr's talk on community > building is how Lokahi needs to have a clear roadmap for what we're > trying to accomplish in this podling -- so potential > users/contributors can understand what we're about, where we're going, > and how they can get involved. I agree this is a good idea - one option is to use Jira for this. I think in general its good practive to create Jira tickets for most changes and then you can: - Use it to produce a roadmap by assigning tickets to version numbers - See the descriptive rationale for the change along with the actual svn commits (by referencing the Jira ticket # in the commit log - get it to produce release notes From looking through the mailing list archives seems that contributions to date have be posted as patches to the list (or elsewhere). Its much easier (IMO) if people are encouraged to attach such things to Jira tickets. That way they don't get lost/forgotten in the mailing list. Also importantly - Jira has an explicit option "Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works" for patches - so there is no doubt that the contributor has given their permisson for their contribution to be included. > I am a Lokahi user, and can contribute documentation, website content > and testing, but I'm not involved in the actual code development. I'd > like to write content for the website, but I can't do that until we've > had the discussions on where we want to go. I agree that the website needs to be improved to make it easier for people to get into the project - mostly just minor changes, but anything that reduces the barrier to entry has to be a good thing. Initially I couldn't find anywhere to download (since noticed the link was at the bottom of the front page) - also links (that you can click) to browse the svn repository, join the mailing list(s) and view the mailing list archives would be good. Anyway - just my 2cents as an outsider. Niall > The below is NOT a list of what the Lokahi community has *agreed* to > work on -- it's my informal notes on ideas that came out of > happyhours/brainstorming. > > Ideas: (no particular order) > > Idea I: change the backend to use JCR/Jackrabbit (see Steve Toback's > initial message in this thread) > Benefits: > - database-agnostic -- Oracle no longer required, increases the > "market" of potential users > - object versioning (eventually be able to provide an "undo my > latest change" feature, and an archive of what a given httpsd.conf > file contained at a point in time) > - run the whole Lokahi application + repository in a JVM (as > opposed to having to install/manage oracle) > - easier for interested people to set up / try out --- lowers the > barrier to contribution > > I completely agree that a JCR backend would make Lokahi even more > valuable than it is now, and that JCR may have the added benefit of > reducing the community-building difficulties we're facing. From > in-person discussions here at Apachecon, the JCR work sounds like it's > the first priority. > > Idea J: develop a scripting interface (suggested by Noel Bergman) to > get around GUI limitations (rationale: why develop a GUI for tasks > that people don't frequently perform? -- just script against the > repository/database in a way that also records the audit trail of > who-made-what-changes-and-when) > > Idea K: manage www.apache.org infrastructure with Lokahi (eat own dog > food -- don't remember whose idea this was.. Steve's or Noel's?) > Benefits: > - more visibility, more credibility for Lokahi if it manages *.apache.org > Challenges: > - need to keep Lokahi continually up-to-date with latest Apache & > mod_jk releases -- (would these take priority over the JCR project?) > > Idea L: patch for latest version of mod_jk > > Idea M: investigate using Lokahi to help manage Felix/OSGi > configurations on mobile devices > > My question is: which of these ideas should the community tackle > first? Are we agreed that it's going to be JCR for sure? > > Ruth > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve > > Toback > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:06 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Lokahi - Status > > > > Hey guys > > Sorry I have had not a lot of time to commit to this project lately. > > > > I wanted to outline some of the thoughts I have had about the project. > > To start a direction sort of conversation. First to outline some of > > the problems with the application: > > > > Install is complicated. (sql scripts are nasty, in my opinion), but > > it currently works. The ant build script could be improved upon, and > > the app itself could be improved. > > > > > > Database support is limited. We support Oracle (and most of mysql is > > the mysql branch) > > > > The support of apache/tomcat for configs is limited. more > > specifically if you use mod_jk, there's a few things that are > > hard-coded that really shouldn't be. Same goes for tomcat server.xml > > files. (Velocity templating of config files?) > > > > There's been small but infrequent conversations about adding in > > modular support for other application servers. > > > > There is no automated test system. > > > > Basically, I think a lot of the focus should be on giving this podling > > a fighting chance to survive the incubator. > > > > > > I had talked at the last Apachecon about porting the code to use a jsr > > 170 back-end, ie jackrabbit. This would allow 2 major features - more > > database support, and a transactional rollback system for > > configuration changed. Both which are not currently included. This > > is no small undertaking however. And I'd like to start a discussion > > around that. > > > > This would also work to solve a little bit of the first issue I > > mentioned - some of the complexity in setting up the app is in fact > > the database setup itself. > > > > > > When the app was originally designed - the concept was to have two > > types of modules. One for the application servers, one for 'connector > > - type' modules. That is something that is roughly followed > > currently. And could be improved upon. > > > > > > Steve > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as Banyu - direct contact information for affiliates is available at http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
