Hi all,
There was a bugtracker (JIRA) some years ago, I participated on it.
Cheers,
BOCQUET Ludovic
Le 01/09/2014 16:06, edhelas a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently looking at our official Wiki (https://wiki.xmpp.org/)
> and there's a couple of things that need to be cleaned.
>
> On the main page
On 2 September 2014 21:43, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> Personally, I think the value of tracking tools is overrated. But guess
> I've been exposed to far too many trackers full of dozens of open issues
> which no body has a real plan to address. That said, I don't object to one
> being deployed so l
On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:07 PM, edhelas wrote:
> So, do we decide something for the next meeting ?
> I don't want to forgot this thing… one more time.
Forget what? I thought we had consensus before use of an external git repo
would be limited. I don't quite understand why that should be revisi
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, edhelas wrote:
> So, do we decide something for the next meeting ?
> I don't want to forgot this thing… one more time. We really need a new tool
> to track our issues so let's do it !
The Editors are going to discuss if the proposal works for them. If
they're happy
So, do we decide something for the next meeting ?
I don't want to forgot this thing… one more time. We really need a
new tool to track our issues so let's do it !
On mar., sept. 2, 2014 at 4:18 , Kurt Zeilenga
wrote:
On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:56 AM, Kurt Zeilenga
wrote:
On Sep 2, 2014, at
On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:56 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
>> I don't know if Kurt would refuse to
>
> As I do XEP work as an employee, it's a personal decision. I'd have to ask
> my employer, which I'm not going to until it become necessary.
^
On 02.09.2014 14:08, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:59 PM, edhelas wrote:
>> - This bugtracker have to run with GIT (because the current XMPP repo is on
>> GIT)
>
> That would be the most convenient thing.
Since when do bugtracker run with git?
Are you talking about how github h
On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> I don't know if Kurt would refuse to
As I do XEP work as an employee, it's a personal decision. I'd have to ask my
employer, which I'm not going to until it become necessary.
I note that I would note to my employer that there's always the op
* Goffi [2014-09-02 13:11]:
> The data is blocked on the server: is there an easy way to dump everything
> (and I mean everything: bug reports, comments, pull requests, etc) and reuse
> it without legal restriction ?
Dunno about the legal thing, but yes, a JSON dump of the data can
easily¹ be gra
On 02/09/14 14:08, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:59 PM, edhelas wrote:
>> Ok, so, to sum-up a little bit the discussion :
>> - We all agree that we need a bugtracker to manage the issues related to
>> each XEP
> I haven't seen much objection to this, as long as it's going to get u
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:59 PM, edhelas wrote:
> Ok, so, to sum-up a little bit the discussion :
> - We all agree that we need a bugtracker to manage the issues related to
> each XEP
I haven't seen much objection to this, as long as it's going to get used.
> - This bugtracker have to run with G
Ok, so, to sum-up a little bit the discussion :
- We all agree that we need a bugtracker to manage the issues related
to each XEP
- This bugtracker have to run with GIT (because the current XMPP repo
is on GIT)
- This bugtracker have to be open-source and deployable on a server
that the XSF can
On 02/09/2014 11:50, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
OK, you're the one. And a lot of people here want github.
And seems like the argument is still the same
"all-proprietary-trendy-shiny-things", i.e. no arguments. Proprietary.
So what? Trendy-shiny. And?
I realize that not everybody here use XMPP for
On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:28, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Ashley Ward wrote:
>> I can imagine a world of fairies and unicorns where (for example) we have an
>> (openid enabled) gitlab, sufficiently automated that we have a repo per xep
>> which is writable by the authors,
On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:29, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Ashley Ward wrote:
>>> I think there are enough people talking about his that we could add this to
>>> discuss as a summit agenda item.
>>
>> Such discussion sho
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Ashley Ward wrote:
>> I think there are enough people talking about his that we could add this to
>> discuss as a summit agenda item.
>
> Such discussion should really happen on-list, not at the summit.
I'll re
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Ashley Ward wrote:
> I can imagine a world of fairies and unicorns where (for example) we have an
> (openid enabled) gitlab, sufficiently automated that we have a repo per xep
> which is writable by the authors, but anyone can raise issues and pull
> requests ag
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Ashley Ward wrote:
> I think there are enough people talking about his that we could add this to
> discuss as a summit agenda item.
Such discussion should really happen on-list, not at the summit.
/K
On 2 Sep 2014, at 07:54, Cramer, E.R. (Eelco) wrote:
> At my office I run a gitlab server that we use for our projects.
>
> Both the hosted gitlab at http://gitlab.com as a self hosted instance of the
> gitlab community edition support multiple ways of signing up (using an openid
> account, a
On 2 Sep 2014, at 09:17, Kevin Smith wrote:
> There's an assumption running through a lot of posts in this thread
> that moving to a github-like pull request model would be a good thing.
> Our situation is somewhat different to the typical OSS project hosting
> on github. The primary responsibili
On 2 September 2014 11:05, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:57:44 +0100
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>
> > Just because you disagree with the argument does not make it invalid.
>
> Even though it's valid it doesn't mean it outweighs other arguments.
>
> No, but nor can you just ignore it.
Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:58:38 +0100
Dave Cridland wrote:
> So your argument is that if the procedure doesn't fit the tool, we
> should change the procedure?
Sure, why not.
Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:57:44 +0100
Dave Cridland wrote:
> Just because you disagree with the argument does not make it invalid.
Even though it's valid it doesn't mean it outweighs other arguments.
> I do follow the concept that a decentralized open protocol using a
> centralized proprietary tool is
On 2 September 2014 10:56, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:17:05 +0100
> Kevin Smith wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Cramer, E.R. (Eelco)
> > wrote:
> > > So it is very well possible to host a service with the same
> > > features people love at github.
> >
> > There's
On 2 September 2014 10:50, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:58:41 +0200
> Goffi wrote:
>
> > You can name and shame me if you want, 'cause I'm definitely in the
> > against github-and-all-proprietary-trendy-shiny-things camp.
>
> OK, you're the one. And a lot of people here want git
Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:17:05 +0100
Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Cramer, E.R. (Eelco)
> wrote:
> > So it is very well possible to host a service with the same
> > features people love at github.
>
> There's an assumption running through a lot of posts in this thread
> that mo
Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:17:05 +0100
Kevin Smith wrote:
> On the issue tracker front: Having an issue tracker is sensible, if
> people (both the submitters and the people who need to handle the
> issues) want one. We set one up years ago, and it fell into disuse so
> it's no longer running. I don't see
Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:58:41 +0200
Goffi wrote:
> You can name and shame me if you want, 'cause I'm definitely in the
> against github-and-all-proprietary-trendy-shiny-things camp.
OK, you're the one. And a lot of people here want github.
And seems like the argument is still the same
"all-propriet
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Cramer, E.R. (Eelco)
wrote:
> So it is very well possible to host a service with the same features people
> love at github.
There's an assumption running through a lot of posts in this thread
that moving to a github-like pull request model would be a good thing.
Ou
On 02/09/2014 09:53, Goffi wrote:
G'day
On 01/09/2014 21:43, Dave Cridland wrote:
Not all our contributors currently will use github.
Yes that's my case: I haven't a github account, and I definitely don't
want one. Actually I think it would be a shame to use that for XMPP as
it is the exact o
On 01/09/2014 23:26, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:03:43 +0100
Dave Cridland wrote:
See Kurt's comment as to one possible reason why.
I use it for both work and pleasure; I'm more in the camp of wanting
to avoid a proprietary outsourced lockin for a core concern. I don't
mind a m
G'day
On 01/09/2014 21:43, Dave Cridland wrote:
Not all our contributors currently will use github.
Yes that's my case: I haven't a github account, and I definitely don't
want one. Actually I think it would be a shame to use that for XMPP as
it is the exact opposite values: proprietary, cent
32 matches
Mail list logo
