[Nitro] RFC: Basic Points for a Better Nitro/Og

James Britt james.britt at gmail.com
Thu Sep 20 13:19:26 EDT 2007

Trans wrote:
> Just wanted to make a few suggestions that I think... no... that I
> really know would go along way to improve Nitro/Og development, and in
> turn improve stability, availability and adoption.
> The main thing is that Og needs to have it's own repository. By
> separating Og out from the Nitro framework, it can grow on it's own
> merits. This in turn will come back to benefit Nitro, as a matter of
> an independent development track, and as people adopt Og as their ORM
> of choice, they will also in turn be attracted to Nitro later for
> their website needs.

Good suggestion.  It would also make it easier for people using Merb, 
Camping, IOWA, etc. to give Og a whirl, or to use Og in standalone 
console apps.

> Another thing to consider is using Subversion rather than Darcs. I
> know Darcs is great. I miss it too in some respects. But it may be
> easier to share in development if there were in fact a central
> Rubyforge-hosted repository. This isn't as big a deal as the first
> point, but it's worth some serious consideration.

Tough call.  I've been moving to Mercurial and away from svn.  I'm fine 
with darcs or svn.

There are tools to link svn with other repos, though they can become yet 
another task to  look after.

Practically speaking, most people will want to pull the lasted code than 
submit patches, so having perhaps a pull-only svn source might work, fed 
by the master darcs repo.

> Lastly, the website, http://nitroproject.org, HAS TO BE FINISHED!!! 

A good, professional-looking site can go a long way in establishing user 
confidence in a project and encourage people to try it out or get 
involved.    Perhaps some people could be given "Web Master" 
permissions, and fix up the annoying things?

James Britt

"Discover the recipes you are using and abandon them."
  - Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt, Oblique Strategies

More information about the Nitro-general mailing list