Hi Cedric,
In theory the idea is cool but if people dont fill the current wiki why
they will take energy to fill a forge ?
I think it requires no more energy than hosting your project on your own
site, or a site like SourceForge or Google Code. The difference is that
it would be centralized, with an easy way to add maintainers, to
generate interest in projects, to search, etc.
A list of nodekits on the wiki, where links become broken and there is
no way of knowing if a project is actually any good, doesn't help at all.
And personnally if there is no support
for git/mercurial i prefer to host the project where i can use those tools.
You could always host your own version control repository, and use the
forge's version control as a mirror. Plus I think some of the software
supports Mercurial at least (mozdev does, why not others?)
I think the main problem is to reference project, not to host them Maybe
we just need to improve the reference of project on osg trac or a better
categories...
No, I think the main problem is generating interest and ensuring a
project stays alive. A dumb project list does not help there.
As it is now, a project is one person's pet and if that person stops
maintaining it, it dies. Handing over project ownership does not happen
when a project is one person's pet. Unless the project is on SourceForge
or Google Code, but then we have the problem of having lots of projects
on different systems using different tools to maintain them.
I think we need a better balance between consolidation and distribution.
Being too decentralized is not good either.
Anyways, we'll see.
J-S
--
______________________________________________________
Jean-Sebastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com
http://www.cm-labs.com/
http://whitestar02.webhop.org/
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
