For even more fun, it could be done NOT as a comment, but just bare text, making the file completely uncompilable to anyone :)
Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]>wrote: > One more twist on the old repo: a comment line could be added at the top of > every file too. > Something along the lines of: > > //YOU ARE SEEING AN OUTDATED VERSION OF THIS FILE > //The new NHibernate repository can be found at > https://github.com/nhibernate/nhibernate-core > > Diego > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 08:30, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> re: nhforge, there already are links ("Download NH3.2.0", "Getting >> Started", "Find answers in our forums", etc.) that handle most of the >> user-oriented actions so I think we're (perhaps) just talking about adding a >> "get the source" link or similar to the main section of the homepage there. >> If anyone wants to replace the text-based links with more obvious 'button >> graphics' or some-such, I'd certainly be in favor of that effort (to >> increase the prominence of these links for newcomers to nhforge). I can see >> the argument that displaying them as text links doesn't result in their >> being featured prominently enough to get a visitor's attention quickly. >> >> I would (perhaps) suggest also that we consider doing something about the >> "Downloads" menu item b/c its both full of mostly outdated content *and* >> misleading in that it makes one think that's where I'd go to download NH. >> Perhaps we change the menu item to "Community-posted downloads" or >> something...? it looks like the community has begun to post downloads here >> that are really available elsewhere (SF, etc.), probably because navigating >> SF to find the downloads is too annoying/difficult. >> >> Since the page pointed to by the "Downloads" menu ( >> http://nhforge.org/media/) seems to mostly contain bins for things like >> NH Spatial, NHV, Castle AR, FluentNH, etc., it seems clear to me that having >> a central source for authoritative links to the latest bins/packages for the >> broader NH 'universe' of related projects would be valuable. >> >> To accommodate this need, I would suggest that we consider changing the >> link on the homepage that reads "Download NH3.2.0" from linking directly to >> the NH GA bins to instead redirecting to some pre-authored page on nhforge >> that contains a more comprehensive collection of download links (latest NH >> GA, each of the latest NHContrib bin packages, FluentNH, uNHAddins, ConfORM, >> whatever) all organized and categorized/labeled to make it easy for someone >> to find whatever NH-related download they are seeking. To make it simple to >> permalink to this one page, I propose that this page url be just >> http://nhforge.org/downloads/ or something equally simple to >> remember/share with others. Then we need to just maintain the currency of >> the links on this one page as downloads are updated, etc. over time (the >> homepage need not change). >> >> This -- the redesign of elements of nhforge to increase clarity of >> navigation/cohesiveness of user experience -- is certainly a useful >> discussion, but IMO its somewhat off-topic for the more narrow pressing >> discussion of VCS choice. >> >> Getting back to that, re: the disposition of the SVN repo my vote would be >> to use the approach suggested earlier of adding the >> OBSOLETE_DO_NOT_USE_THIS_REPO.txt file (or sim.) message to every folder and >> deleting the .csproj, .sln, NANT, binary references, etc. content (e.g. >> pretty much everything but the .cs files) so that existing links retain >> their proper function but anyone checking out from the repo is left with an >> unbuildable tree. >> >> This will permit existing permalinks (well, as we're discussing, clearly >> NOT perma- at all <g>) to remain navigable/intact for blog posts, etc. while >> providing a non-ignorable flag-in-your-face about where the authoritative >> repo has been relocated. >> >> >> Steve Bohlen >> [email protected] >> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com >> http://twitter.com/sbohlen >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
