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

Mark Van De Vyver mvyver at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 04:17:07 EDT 2007

On 9/21/07, James Britt <james.britt at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

All good points.  By having a separate repo isn't the admin increased?
If so, there will be a need for extra hands to help George?
I'm only interested in Og, so haven't looked at anything to do with
Nitro.  However, if OG is separated, wouldn't there need to be some
way to ensure changes don't break Nitro?  I imagine this might be the
main concern?

>From my own experience: Some time ago I'd come across the Nitro page
but not being interested in a web framework I moved on :)
Much later, in the course of a general ORM search I hunted Og down
based on Kirk Haines having mentioned it in a discussion about Rails
on the eventmachine list!
So, I'm not certain if it needs a separate repo or not but a more
prominent web presence would, I think, be more significant.  This
however involves a lot of extra work....

> > 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?

Again, all good points, which require extra work - I'm not aware of
volunteers being refused to be allowed to help - so far I've fond
George responsive to my code posts.

My 2c

> --
> James Britt
> "Discover the recipes you are using and abandon them."
>   - Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt, Oblique Strategies
> _______________________________________________
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general

More information about the Nitro-general mailing list