Given that github doesn't have download metrics and NHForge doesn't
have bandwidth, I think it makes sense to leave the files on SF.net.
I also agree strongly about providing obvious download links on
nhforge.org. As far as I'm concerned, SF.net should be nearly
invisible, since it's hard to navigate, ugly, and not really providing
much in the way of services to us anyways.
Regarding the repository, it sounds like various people have linked to
the old repository. I think it would be worth considering simply
turning off the SVN service. There would be no question of the
authoritative source if the SVN repository was simply not present.
This would prevent stale links to old versions of the source.
Granted, if the links already specify the revision, then this isn't so
problematic. That said, is there really that much in the way of
linkage that's worth preserving? Losing a number of links is in my
mind less important than being unambiguous about the home. Many times
in the past I've been looking for the project repo and I have come
across a stale one first. On the same train of thought, we should
have big obvious links to our major web sections from the main page of
the nhforge site... downloads, reporting issues (not just jira, but a
page that tells HOW to do it), source control, and the rest of the
nhforge content.
Patrick Earl
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, thought not :)
>
> Given the constraints we have, I think the answer is probably "leave the
> downloads where they are on SF" for now. Its already in place, works fine,
> and its location is common knowledge among present adopters.
>
> We might want to more prominently feature the links on nhforge to the
> downloads on SF, but otherwise I'd probably argue for leaving all else
> as-is.
>
> Choosing a different VCS can probably be done without really needing to make
> changes to any other aspects (JIRA, downloads, whatever) of the
> infrastructure.
>
> There's probably a separate long-term conversation about centralizing
> everything under one roof/hoster/system/domain but its sounding to me like
> this needs to be a different decision process not on the critical path for
> our resolving the VCS issue amongst ourselves.
>
> Does this seem reasonable?
>
> -Steve B.
> ________________________________
> From: John Davidson <[email protected]>
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:58:09 -0400
> To: <[email protected]>
> ReplyTo: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] VCS Vote
> NHForge definitely does not have the bandwidth capacity to manage the
> download volume.
> John Davidson
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I fear that the issue with nhforge-hosted downloads is both bandwidth and
>> metrics-capture (both of which SF does handle just fine for the most part).
>> Is there an (easy) way to capture metrics from nhforge?
>>
>> People are used to going to SF for downloads and prominent links to SF
>> download pages from nhforge for new adopters starting at nhforge seem like
>> an ok compromise to me.
>>
>> -Steve B.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Julian Maughan <[email protected]>
>> Sender: [email protected]
>> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:18:25 +0800
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> ReplyTo: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] VCS Vote
>>
>> +1 for consolidation then :)
>>
>> That tends to suggest to me that hosting downloads on SF would be a bad
>> idea. If release downloads are to be regarded as a front-of-shop concern
>> (which I think they should), can't we host releases on the NHForge server?
>> The user then doesn't have to be redirected to an unrelated, ad-sponsored
>> page on SF (at the back-of-shop, to continue the analogy)
>>
>> On 19/08/2011 6:56 AM, "Stephen Bohlen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Agreed. I'd posited early on that along w a move to *some* VCS hosting
>> > provider we needed to consolidate the all else around NHForge so that all
>> > existing deprecated resources could simply point to NHForge as a hub from
>> > which links to all else (JIRA, downloads, whatever) could emanate.
>> >
>> > With JIRA remaining hosted by Atlassian, source somewhere (yet to be
>> > decided), what other than downloads still needs a 'home' at this point?
>> >
>> > -Steve B.
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Julian Maughan <[email protected]>
>> > Sender: [email protected]
>> > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:48:15
>> > To: <[email protected]>
>> > Reply-To: [email protected]
>> > Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] VCS Vote
>> >
>> > I just think if the project infrastructure is too fragmented, it will
>> > become
>> > confusing. I think we can divide the infrastructure into two categories:
>> > front-of-shop and back-of-shop. I think it is important there is one
>> > place
>> > users go for downloads, doco, etc. (NHForge). The back-of-shop stuff -
>> > eg
>> > (VCS, bug-tracker) - it doesn't matter so much. That is the reason I
>> > raised
>> > the question about download hosting.
>> > On 19/08/2011 6:37 AM, "Stephen Bohlen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Yeah, some time ago (early on in this last attempt at this) I pointed
>> >> out
>> > that there are indeed two distinct categories in which we're trying to
>> > make
>> > a decision: VCS specifically and project infrastructure more broadly
>> > (issue
>> > tracking, announcements, etc).
>> >>
>> >> Even if we go to github for VCS, I'm not sure this precludes our
>> >> retaining
>> > sourceforge + nhforge in the other roles (e.g., as we were already
>> > discussing earlier today re: central hub for downloads, etc ).
>> >>
>> >> Couldn't a move to github for VCS leave all else exactly as-is and be a
>> > (relatively) non-invasive change (wondering....)?
>> >>
>> >> -Steve B.
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Julian Maughan <[email protected]>
>> >> Sender: [email protected]
>> >> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:24:45
>> >> To: <[email protected]>
>> >> Reply-To: [email protected]
>> >> Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] VCS Vote
>> >>
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> I don't have a problem with git or using GitHub as a source code host.
>> >> However, GitHub doesn't seem as good as Google Code or CodePlex in
>> > offering
>> >> a project 'home'. Larger projects like NServiceBus, that use GitHub for
>> >> their source, often have a strong alternative web presence with their
>> >> website. If we use GitHub, I believe NHForge will need to be improved
>> >> to
>> >> become a better project home. Do we have the resources for this
>> > improvement?
>> >> Maybe not.
>> >> On 19/08/2011 3:28 AM, "Richard Brown" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> Oops, sorry. I should have read more carefully.
>> >>> On 18 Aug 2011 20:25, "Fabio Maulo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>> The meaning is:
>> >>>> -1 = Do not use the github repository, find another alternative.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Richard Brown
>> >>>> <[email protected]
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Is that -1 for github? Or -1 for this specific branch?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (just checking there isn't something wrong with the import I wasn't
>> >> aware
>> >>>>> of.)
>> >>>>> On 18 Aug 2011 19:11, "Fabio Maulo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>> > -1
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >> So we need to ensure there has been a clear decision on the
>> >>>>> >> source
>> >>>>> >> control matter. Committers should indicate one of the following
>> >>>>> >> options.
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> +1 = Use the github repository.
>> >>>>> >> -1 = Do not use the github repository, find another alternative.
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> Please respond on this thread with your vote.
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> Patrick Earl
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > --
>> >>>>> > Fabio Maulo
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Fabio Maulo
>> >>
>> >
>
>
