[Nitro] Revisiting some Og issues again: RFC

Mark Van De Vyver mvyver at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 00:07:48 EST 2007

On Nov 28, 2007 3:50 PM, Arne Brasseur <arne at arnebrasseur.net> wrote:
> Mark Van De Vyver schreef:
> > Hi Devs,
> > Reviewing some posts over the last few months, I've made a summary (in
> > no particular order) and proposal.
> > I've not quoted names since this i just my impression.
> >
> > Observations:
> > - There is widespread interest in Og as a standalone project.
> > - Og is incorrectly considered as being bound to Nitro.
> > - Specs and developer level documentation are scarce.
> > - Intermediate level documentation of Og is scarce, i.e. for people
> > wanting to write user level docs.
> > - Confusion exists about what version of Og is 'current'.
> > - Confusion exists about what the Og roadmap is.
> > - Darcs may be a barrier to entry (cf svn, git, mercurial...?).
> > - Og needs a stable branch and a development branch.
> >
> > It seems there was some interest in volunteering to help on different
> > aspects, of the above, but this might have changed over the last few
> > months.
> >
> > Is it worth considering setting up something like Og-dev on google
> > code or some such service, calling that the development branch and
> > inviting committers, Rubinius style?
> > This would allow people to tackle any of the above issues they wished to.
> > Given this would be aimed at the intermediate/developer level much of
> > the results of this effort would feed into a stable branch as things
> > are ironed out?
> >
> > Mark
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nitro-general mailing list
> > Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
> >
> >
> Hi Mark, devs,
> I was under the impression that a seperate repo for Og was in the
> making, any news from the trenches? Trans? George?

Yep, that'll probably still happen, but a separate repo doesn't
address many of the issues people have raised.

> This project does have a history of not giving anyone direct commit
> access. I'm not sure if this is more a technical/security issue with the
> current hosting of the repo, or rather a very deliberal policy.

It's a very good policy when:
 - there are no specs to test aginst
 - the code is used in a production environment

So I'm not complaining, or suggesting a change as long as those two
characteristics remain.

> Since there's not much reaction, positive or negative, I would suggest
> you just go ahead and do it. Set up a development/experimental Og branch
> somewhere that is more accessible to developers. My impression is that
> any 'should we do this' type of questions don't get much feedback here,
> but any tangible contribution is appreciated. If you can get more
> developers involved it can only improve the project in the end.

I'm leary of anything that might fragment efforts - dev time is a
scarce/finite resource.
I'm in a position to contribute occasionally but not experienced
enough to lead something like this.
I'm happy to wait and see what interest there is.


> (ab)
> --
> Arne Brasseur
> http://www.arnebrasseur.net
> http://www.zhongwiki.com
> http://www.bankske.org
> arne at arnebrasseur.net

More information about the Nitro-general mailing list