maintaining reporter.apache.org
I noticed reporter.apache.org makes use of some projects-new.apache.org json files that have disappeared when adding committee-info.txt parsing Then I started to dig into reporter.a.o code and update minor parts before doing more complex work: I expected that svn updates would be published with the VM's svnpubsub daemon, but that didn't happen And when I looked at reporter.a.o directory on the VM, I discovered that it was not a svn checkout Question: how is reporter.apache.org supposed to be updated? is there a release process to deploy source code to the VM? Regards, Hervé
Re: svn commit: r1686683 - in /comdev/projects.apache.org/scripts: README.txt import/addpmc.py
> do you really think addpmc.py is useful now? ping Regards, Hervé Le dimanche 21 juin 2015 16:47:25 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit : > ok, there is a misunderstanding: reverted as first step > > then we need to discuss, since I don't see when it may be used given current > logic where everything comes from committee-info.txt and rdf files: that's > the way I added committees created during last monthes, ie simply running > parsecommittees.py > > adding committees as json when the committee does not exist in committee- > info.txt is a nonsense IMHO: once I added committe-info.txt parsing feature, > after long thoughts on it, I really don't see any use for this addpmc.py > script > > (the discussion about RDF/DOAP is another independant topic, ie where to > find information that is not in committee-info.txt) > > > do you really think addpmc.py is useful now? > > Regards, > > Hervé > > Le dimanche 21 juin 2015 15:52:28 Daniel Gruno a écrit : > > Excuse me? That script WAS used for adding new committees to the site, > > simple and easy. > > Please revert, and don't just delete stuff because you personally don't > > use it. > > > > WIth regards, > > Daniel. > > > > On 2015-06-21 03:50, hbout...@apache.org wrote: > > > Author: hboutemy > > > Date: Sun Jun 21 01:50:14 2015 > > > New Revision: 1686683 > > > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1686683 > > > Log: > > > removed addpmc.py: not used > > > > > > Removed: > > > comdev/projects.apache.org/scripts/import/addpmc.py > > > > > > Modified: > > > comdev/projects.apache.org/scripts/README.txt > > > > > > Modified: comdev/projects.apache.org/scripts/README.txt > > > URL: > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/comdev/projects.apache.org/scripts/README.t > > > x > > > t?rev=1686683&r1=1686682&r2=1686683&view=diff > > > > > > = > > > = --- comdev/projects.apache.org/scripts/README.txt (original) > > > +++ comdev/projects.apache.org/scripts/README.txt Sun Jun 21 01:50:14 > > > 2015 > > > > > > @@ -34,8 +34,7 @@ various sources: > > > in: foundation/committees.json + foundation/committees-retired.json > > > + > > > committee-info.txt > > > (https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/committee-inf > > > o > > > .txt) out: foundation/committees.json + > > > foundation/committees-retired.json> > > > > > > -- parsepmcs.py: imports PMC data (RDF) from the old project.apache.org > > > site. No need - to run that more than once? > > > +- parsepmcs.py: imports PMC data (RDF) from the old project.apache.org > > > site.> > > > > > > in: > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site-tools/trunk/pro > > > j > > > ects/pmc_list.xml + PMC data .rdf files out: foundation/pmcs.json > > > > > > @@ -43,8 +42,3 @@ various sources: > > > turns them into JSON objects. > > > in: > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site-tools/trunk/pro > > > j > > > ects/files.xml + projects' DOAP files out: projects/*.json + > > > foundation/projects.json > > > > > > - > > > -- addpmc.py > > > - in: foundation/pmcs.json + foundation/committees-evolution.json + > > > params > > > - out: foundation/pmcs.json + foundation/committees-evolution.json > > > - list of PMCs with site url (pmcs.json) and monthly list of new > > > committees (committees-evolution.json)
Re: Is https://projects-new.apache.org/ ready for prime time?
Sebb, as main maintainer of current http://projects.apache.org/ (AFAIK), are you ok with switching the url to the new service and renaming current service to projects-old (to let use time to continue content migration withotu loosing anything)? Do you see any show stopper? Of course, I'm interested in your help to maintain the new projects site: don't hesitate to comment on or change the code. Regards, Hervé Le dimanche 21 juin 2015 17:16:07 jan i a écrit : > +1 switch as soon as possible, and then continue working on the data end. > > rgds > jan i > > On Sunday, June 21, 2015, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > > Le dimanche 21 juin 2015 15:54:29 jan i a écrit : > > > On 21 June 2015 at 15:48, Daniel Gruno > > > > wrote: > > > > On 2015-06-21 02:45, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > > > >> for me, the new site is ready: there is of course room for > > > > improvements, > > > > > >> but > > > >> it is stable and maintainable, waiting for contributions > > > >> > > > >> notice: I changed the wording to stop using "TLP", but use > > > >> "Committee" > > > >> instead, since TLP cause issues when trying to describe each projects > > > >> (the > > > >> software) as TLP or sub-projects > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> when doing the switch, we'll need to rename current site as projects- > > > >> old.apache.org: there is some content to migrate (DOAP, > > > > documentation) > > > > > >> associated to communication with projects on the changes that has to > > > > be > > > > > >> decoupled from public vizualisation. I'll continue working on it. > > > >> > > > >> There one choice to do: continue serving the pages from current VM or > > > >> serve > > > >> through standard resilient httpds. The VM is useful for cron jobs, > > > > but is > > > > > >> not > > > >> absolutely necessary for serving content since I removed online > > > > content > > > > > >> editing that caused the VM requirement for content serving AFAIK. > > > > Using > > > > > >> standard httpd will avoid SPOF or eventual load issue. > > > > > > > > What do you mean by 'standard httpd'? It already uses...standard httpd > > > > for > > > > > > serving the site. > > > > The cron jobs are needed for updating various statistics and data on > > > > the > > > > > > site, they can't just be shut off - they also power > > > > reporter.apache.org. > > > > > Maybe I misunderstood something, I understood that we are using httpd, > > > > but > > > > > in our own vm. In my opinion it would be nicer to use the www.a.o httpd > > > (sorry > > > vms have been changing lately so I am not sure where it runs), since > > > that > > > would put httpd maintenance on infra instead of comdev. > > > > +1 > > that was what I mean by "standard httpd" (ie not the binary but the > > machines > > where it runs) > > > > > > I think the site is ready for a more prominent role, but I find this > > > > discussion confusing, and I find it somewhat sad that we're gonna > > > > stick > > > > with something as arcane as DOAP. > > > > > > +100 !! > > > > > > DOAP == Dead On Arrival Permanently :-) JSON == Jump Simply On New > > > (but I know I am only 1 voice). > > > > step by step, please: this will avoid confusion between independant topics > > > > switching without disturbing current conventions/knowledge is something > > that > > already takes a long time and energy: I know it because I put a lot of > > energy > > on it for a few monthes now! > > > > We started a discussion on this source format topic during april, and > > AFAIK > > nobody worked on it. > > > > What I'd like now is to switch: we can discuss later on what we want to > > change > > (and communication to every comittees this requires). > > With the new site, we'll be able to change formats if we want, the only > > requirement is to have json files for the visualization > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > > > rgds > > > jan i. > > > > > > > With regards, > > > > Daniel. > > > > > > > >> but definitely, the site is ready for the switch > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> > > > >> Hervé > > > >> > > > >> Le vendredi 19 juin 2015 20:55:52 Sally Khudairi a écrit : > > > >>> Hello Uli and the Apache ComDev team --I hope this message finds you > > > >>> well. > > > >>> Per below, I'm interested in promoting the new Projects page. > > > >>> Can you please let me know if/when we're ready to do so? > > > >>> Thanks so much, > > > >>> Sally > > > >>> > > > >>> - Forwarded Message - > > > >>> > > > >>>From: David Nalley > > > > >>> > > > >>> To: Sally Khudairi > > > > >>> > > > >>> Cc: Daniel Gruno >; ASF > > > > Infrastructure > > > > > >>> > Sent: Friday, June 19, > > > > 2015 11:50 AM > > > > > >>> Subject: Re: Is https://projects-new.apache.org/ ready for prime > > > > time? > > > > > >>> Hi Sally: > > > >>> > > > >>> projects-new.apache.org is a ComDev managed resource, not an > > > >>> infrastructure managed resource. I think the PMC has had a > > > >>
Re: Does apache have a forum?
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:42:05 -0300, Ming Yu wrote: Hi,I have something technical to ask about the use of Apache and some related tools, but I cannot find a forum.Does apache have a forum? Thank you. When you say Apache, I guess you mean HTTPD, the web server. The Apache Software Foundation way of discussion is through mailing lists. The HTTPD ones are listed here: http://httpd.apache.org/lists.html. You can find a forum interface built over the mailing list at some sites, such as http://apache-http-server.18135.x6.nabble.com/Apache-HTTP-Server-Users-f4718411.html. -- Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer http://machina.com.br
Re: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > Edited out private stuff and moved to ComDev list since we are now making > decisions about Apache Extras > > To your options below: > > We've always said Apache will provide no management of this other than to > make it available. To this end I propose we do b) (only the projects that are > original to Apache Extras), which includes projects with no content. > > In terms of the name clash is it possible to provide a list of the 39 > affected projects? If so then we can prune any that are empty from that > shorter list and attempt to notify the owners of the others. Failing any > response asking us to do otherwise I suggest we add an "ax-" prefix to those > project names (I am assuming this is just the project name in URLs and > similar). > The collisions are at the bottom of this paste.: https://paste.apache.org/4hpd You'll notice some are things like 'maven' which is interesting, because we have Maven as a TLP. But on closer inspection - Maven seems to have no content: https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/maven/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk Similar story on Jena and a number of others. --David > One other thing that will need to be done once migration is complete is an > update of DNS. http://apache-extras.com currently redirects to > https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/ > > Finally we'll need to read over the FAQ to update appropriately (I can do > that) - http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html > > Ross > > -Original Message- > From: David Nalley [mailto:ke4...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:09 AM > To: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > Cc: Jim Jagielski > Subject: Re: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge > > So dropping the SF folks again. > > Some updates on what we've found. > In total, there are around 350 projects in the A-E directory on google code. > > Of those 350, 161 are mirrors of content from elsewhere. Some of them are > even mirrors of other projects within Apache Extras, which is just > bewildering. > > That leaves us with 189 projects that are original with us. In doing some > spot checking, we've discovered that many of those contain zero content, or > perhaps only a single commit, with no material code. > Daniel believes that perhaps as many as 1/2 of the original projects contain > nothing meaningful. > > In short, migrating all 350 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, and I'd > argue makes it more difficult to find anything of value. > > We did do checking on the ~189 projects that are original to us, 150 of those > we could migrate straight away (subject to the above > comments) however, 39 have name conflicts at SourceForge, so we would need > to rename them. > > That leaves us with a few questions: > Does ComDev want us to migrate: > a) all 350 > b) only the projects that are original at Apache Extras > c) only the projects at Apache Extras that are original and actually have > content - and if c) - please provide a list. > > What would ComDev like to rename the projects where naming collisions are in > place? > > --David
RE: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge
Yes, we will send a mail to PMCs when we have decided what we are going to do. I don’t want 150+ PMCs asking for 10 different approaches, but if any are reading here and have an interest then I'm all ears. Ross -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 10:23 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Cc: David Nalley; Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge On 24 June 2015 at 19:05, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Edited out private stuff and moved to ComDev list since we are now > making decisions about Apache Extras > > To your options below: > > We've always said Apache will provide no management of this other than > to make it available. To this end I propose we do b) (only the > projects that are original to Apache Extras), which includes projects with no > content. > > In terms of the name clash is it possible to provide a list of the 39 > affected projects? If so then we can prune any that are empty from > that shorter list and attempt to notify the owners of the others. > Failing any response asking us to do otherwise I suggest we add an > "ax-" prefix to those project names (I am assuming this is just the > project name in URLs and similar). > > One other thing that will need to be done once migration is complete > is an update of DNS. http://apache-extras.com currently redirects to > https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/ > > Finally we'll need to read over the FAQ to update appropriately (I can > do > that) - http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html > After having read the mail from David (and still a bit chocked of the wilderness) I too recommend b) We should consider sending an email to all the other projects, so they cannot say they were not informed (if such a mail can be generated). rgds jan i. > Ross > > -Original Message- > From: David Nalley [mailto:ke4...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:09 AM > To: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > Cc: Jim Jagielski > Subject: Re: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge > > So dropping the SF folks again. > > Some updates on what we've found. > In total, there are around 350 projects in the A-E directory on google > code. > > Of those 350, 161 are mirrors of content from elsewhere. Some of them > are even mirrors of other projects within Apache Extras, which is just > bewildering. > > That leaves us with 189 projects that are original with us. In doing > some spot checking, we've discovered that many of those contain zero > content, or perhaps only a single commit, with no material code. > Daniel believes that perhaps as many as 1/2 of the original projects > contain nothing meaningful. > > In short, migrating all 350 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, and > I'd argue makes it more difficult to find anything of value. > > We did do checking on the ~189 projects that are original to us, 150 > of those we could migrate straight away (subject to the above > comments) however, 39 have name conflicts at SourceForge, so we would > need to rename them. > > That leaves us with a few questions: > Does ComDev want us to migrate: > a) all 350 > b) only the projects that are original at Apache Extras > c) only the projects at Apache Extras that are original and actually > have content - and if c) - please provide a list. > > What would ComDev like to rename the projects where naming collisions > are in place? > > --David >
Re: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge
On 24 June 2015 at 19:05, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Edited out private stuff and moved to ComDev list since we are now making > decisions about Apache Extras > > To your options below: > > We've always said Apache will provide no management of this other than to > make it available. To this end I propose we do b) (only the projects that > are original to Apache Extras), which includes projects with no content. > > In terms of the name clash is it possible to provide a list of the 39 > affected projects? If so then we can prune any that are empty from that > shorter list and attempt to notify the owners of the others. Failing any > response asking us to do otherwise I suggest we add an "ax-" prefix to > those project names (I am assuming this is just the project name in URLs > and similar). > > One other thing that will need to be done once migration is complete is an > update of DNS. http://apache-extras.com currently redirects to > https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/ > > Finally we'll need to read over the FAQ to update appropriately (I can do > that) - http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html > After having read the mail from David (and still a bit chocked of the wilderness) I too recommend b) We should consider sending an email to all the other projects, so they cannot say they were not informed (if such a mail can be generated). rgds jan i. > Ross > > -Original Message- > From: David Nalley [mailto:ke4...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:09 AM > To: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > Cc: Jim Jagielski > Subject: Re: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge > > So dropping the SF folks again. > > Some updates on what we've found. > In total, there are around 350 projects in the A-E directory on google > code. > > Of those 350, 161 are mirrors of content from elsewhere. Some of them are > even mirrors of other projects within Apache Extras, which is just > bewildering. > > That leaves us with 189 projects that are original with us. In doing some > spot checking, we've discovered that many of those contain zero content, or > perhaps only a single commit, with no material code. > Daniel believes that perhaps as many as 1/2 of the original projects > contain nothing meaningful. > > In short, migrating all 350 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, and I'd > argue makes it more difficult to find anything of value. > > We did do checking on the ~189 projects that are original to us, 150 of > those we could migrate straight away (subject to the above > comments) however, 39 have name conflicts at SourceForge, so we would > need to rename them. > > That leaves us with a few questions: > Does ComDev want us to migrate: > a) all 350 > b) only the projects that are original at Apache Extras > c) only the projects at Apache Extras that are original and actually have > content - and if c) - please provide a list. > > What would ComDev like to rename the projects where naming collisions are > in place? > > --David >
RE: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge
Edited out private stuff and moved to ComDev list since we are now making decisions about Apache Extras To your options below: We've always said Apache will provide no management of this other than to make it available. To this end I propose we do b) (only the projects that are original to Apache Extras), which includes projects with no content. In terms of the name clash is it possible to provide a list of the 39 affected projects? If so then we can prune any that are empty from that shorter list and attempt to notify the owners of the others. Failing any response asking us to do otherwise I suggest we add an "ax-" prefix to those project names (I am assuming this is just the project name in URLs and similar). One other thing that will need to be done once migration is complete is an update of DNS. http://apache-extras.com currently redirects to https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/ Finally we'll need to read over the FAQ to update appropriately (I can do that) - http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html Ross -Original Message- From: David Nalley [mailto:ke4...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:09 AM To: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) Cc: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge So dropping the SF folks again. Some updates on what we've found. In total, there are around 350 projects in the A-E directory on google code. Of those 350, 161 are mirrors of content from elsewhere. Some of them are even mirrors of other projects within Apache Extras, which is just bewildering. That leaves us with 189 projects that are original with us. In doing some spot checking, we've discovered that many of those contain zero content, or perhaps only a single commit, with no material code. Daniel believes that perhaps as many as 1/2 of the original projects contain nothing meaningful. In short, migrating all 350 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, and I'd argue makes it more difficult to find anything of value. We did do checking on the ~189 projects that are original to us, 150 of those we could migrate straight away (subject to the above comments) however, 39 have name conflicts at SourceForge, so we would need to rename them. That leaves us with a few questions: Does ComDev want us to migrate: a) all 350 b) only the projects that are original at Apache Extras c) only the projects at Apache Extras that are original and actually have content - and if c) - please provide a list. What would ComDev like to rename the projects where naming collisions are in place? --David
