7 Nov
2012
7 Nov
'12
9:59 a.m.
On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Jerome Velociter <jerome(a)velociter.fr> wrote:
On 11/07/2012 09:03 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
I mentioned that already in my reply when I said that xwiki-contrib projects get a maven
remote repo.
Re allowing external projects to be hosted in our remote maven repo, maybe but it's
dangerous. We need some oversight of the project we host because we're then legally
responsible for what we host. So we'd some way for people to request hosting and have
manual operation.
TBH I'm not sure if we should provide this since Sonatype already provides it for any
open source project, see
https://docs.sonatype.org/display/Repository/Sonatype+OSS+Maven+Repository+…
They already have all the tools to verify that poms are correct and more so I don't
think we should duplicate the effort.
Right now, I'd say we only offer a remote maven repo for our own projects and we
direct others to the Sonatype OSS repo.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Nov 5, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Jerome Velociter
<jerome(a)velociter.fr> wrote:
Makes sense to me.
One thing to consider also is the fact projects outside contrib will play less well with
XWiki extension manager since they won't be in XWiki nexus (unless the repository they
are in is added to nexus). Personnally I think we should allow contributing organization
repositories being added in XWiki's nexus so that it's not a differentiator.
On 10/23/2012 09:33 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
My take on this:
* Either the project is a xwiki-contrib project and then it gets the tools and niceties
included for being an xwiki-contrib project (jira, CI, web site, ability to collaborate
equally between contributors, email notifications on xwiki lists, sonar dashboard coming
soon, maven remote repository, etc) or it's not and then it uses whatever tools it
wants but not xwiki's project resources. It seems fair to me.
* If we agree we should then update contrib.xwiki.org to explain better all that the user
will get by being an xwiki-contrib project and explain the alternative. And also explain
that if the user wants to host it himself then give him some direction for the maven
groupid/artifactid that he should or rather the ones he shouldn't use since it's
reserved (basicallty the rule is his groupid cannot start with org.xwiki, not sure if we
want to also say that his artifact id shouldn't start with "xwiki-" as its
done for maven plugins in apache land).
WDYT? On Oct 23, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Ludovic Dubost
<ludovic(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> This should have been for devs Envoyé de mon iPhone Début du message transféré :
>> Expéditeur: Ludovic Dubost <ludovic(a)xwiki.com> Date: 23 octobre 2012
09:19:55 UTC+02:00 Destinataire: XWiki Users <users(a)xwiki.org> Objet: Github
tracker. was: Re: [xwiki-users] New Realtime collaborative editing extension. Just a
quick. You seem to introduce a practice to use the github tracker instead of xwiki.org
jira's Not sure it's a good thing. I'm sure Vincent will agree
Well, what I would prefer personally is that contrib projects be in the xwiki-contrib
organization and use the XWiki tools (wiki, jira, etc). The reason is that this allows: *
to group together projects around XWiki (they're not scattered everywhere on the web
and harder to find) * make it a neutral location for people to collaborate together on
xwiki projects. That's a key element to contribution IMO * is more long term. If you
stop working on the project it's not going to be a dead project in someone's
github repo and it'll have more chance of being maintained/seen in the xwiki-contrib
repo I know Jerome also puts his contributions in his own github project and I had the
same reservation about it. We can't force anyone of course since this is a
contribution but it's more collaborative to make them xwiki-contrib project, following
the rules defined at http://contrib.xwiki.org I understand you may want to beef up your
github profile but for collaboration I feel the xwiki-contrib is better with the 2
arguments listed above. Jerome, Caleb let me know what you think.
Hi Vincent,
This is a interesting topic and there are several aspects to it.
For me the "discoverability" argument for having projects on
https://github.com/xwiki-contribdoes not make much sense. The centralized place for
projects around XWiki is http://extensions.xwiki.org, not github. There's the
"view source" button that tells where the sources are. Github is a convenience
here, and it's always possible to "copy" (or fork) a project in
xwiki-contrib, for whatever reason (original project not active, etc.).
That being said I understand why you think it's better to have as much projects as
possible under the xwiki-contrib umbrella : it makes it a one-stop shop with the same
tools, same workflow, same permissions, etc.
Here are the arguments I see for why one contributor or contributing organization would
want to host its projects itself :
- use of own tools and own workflow (github issues vs. JIRA for example).
- it allows a contributor or contributing organization to have it's own place to
centralize its contribution(s) (the "beef up" argument as you say). I think this
can make sense in some circonstances, especially for contributing organizations (companies
for example).
The bottom line comes down to : what rules do we want for using the
"org.xwiki.contrib" groupId and tools (maven repos, CI, etc.) ?
If we want a rule saying that the project should be hosted on github.com/xwiki-contrib/
then that's that, and I think it's fair. We just have to decide on it (right now
there is no such rule according to http://contrib.xwiki.org/). Jerome.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Jerome
>>
>>
>>> Thanks -Vincent
>>>>> Ludovic Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 23 oct. 2012 à 04:17, Caleb James
DeLisle <calebdelisle(a)lavabit.com> a écrit :
>>>>>> One other thing, please report the features which you want and
what you imagine as best on the github tracker, it's easier to close an issue as
"won't fix" than it is to remember an important issue which nobody wrote
down ;) Thanks Caleb On 10/22/2012 10:14 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, Thanks for the complement. I just updated it and fixed
issue #1. Thanks for reporting it. Somehow showing who else is editing, showing where they
are editing in the document and allowing the user to spawn a chat window with other
editors on the page are all interesting possibilities. Right now I think the thing to do
is decide where there is the most bang for your buck in terms of feature value and get an
idea of what's most natural for the user. Thanks, Caleb On 10/19/2012 07:59 AM,
Ryszard Łach wrote:
>>>>>>>> Great work! It looks like good starting point to give
xwiki the main (at least for me) feature, that makes googledoc sometimes more suitable for
collaborative editing. It would be really great, if your editor would show somehow, where
the other editor (person) is now, where is his cursor. Maybe a highlight (the whole line)
showing the other's cursor placement? Do you plan to work on such improvements? R.