[Nitro] The future of Nitro, Og and Raw
prpht9 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 23 20:10:45 EDT 2008
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:37 PM, trans <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> I'm still listening. After George went south on the project I haven't
> had any real motivation to continue. But it's a real shame
> considering. I think it would be great for you to pick up the torch
> and run with it.
We'll see what happens but I'm going to try.
> On Oct 23, 11:10 am, chris <prp... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not sure who all is still listening but I have something to say.
> > As Dan North said a while back. Nitro is quite feature full and could
> > really use some time to settle in with some bug fixes and a really solid
> > release. I may end up taking a stab at this. Once I got some fixes into
> > the Nitro and Raw dependancies and require statements. A simple "nitro
> > hello;cd hello;nitro" works out of the box. I also converted the entire
> > projects to "newgem" projects ( no offense intended ).
> If it works for you, that's fine. Since I stopped working on Nitro I
> recrafted my whole build suite anyway.
> But how does newgem help except to build a gem?
It's not just the gem build it has direct rake tasks to upload a built gem
directly to rubyforge and much more. Rake is a tool I can't live without.
I'm really surprised it wasn't used in the darcs repo source.
> > The rake build tasks
> > in there are excellent and "rake local_deploy" works perfectly. I have
> > touched Og, it seems to be pretty solid already. (side note: I think Og
> > could stand on it's own two feet as well but if you want me to hold onto
> > for a while I will)
> I separated Og into it's own project. See http://ogden.rubyforge.org.
> There is a git repo. It is pretty much exactly what is in the current
> Nitro repo. I figured splitting Og off on it's own was the first thing
> to do in working toward a new stable release. Unfortunately the tests
> were converted to RSpec just before all that (not by me), and they do
> not fully pass and I have not been able to track down all the issues --
> I wish we had the old unit tests instead.
As I'm poking around I'll see what I can do about finding those tests along
> The main plans I had for the future of Og were to make "enchanting"
> explicit, and remove as much dynamic code injection as possible (there
> is a lot of that in this lib). But a new solid release before all
> that, at this point, would probably be best to help get a little fire
> going under it.
Hopefully my time investment in nitro will help out the og movement as
well. I still think it outshines activerecord by leaps and bounds.
> > CHANGELOG:
> > Fixed Nitro and Raw gemspec dependancies
> > Fixed missing "require 'raw/controller'" in raw.rb
> > Replaced lib/facets.rb with a gemspec dependancy
> > Converted Nitro to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and
> > rubyforge integration
> > Converted Raw to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and
> > rubyforge integration
> > TODO:
> > I think I found some bugs in the admin part, which in my opinion is key
> > getting a new user's feet wet with nitro and og. I'd like to fix those.
> > Massive build up of examples in the rdocs
> > Move good examples to the prototype site produced by "nitro project_name"
> > Include more details in the actual prototype site code and startup files
> > like app.rb and config/debug.rb
> > I do not plan to move away from using the current unit testing. However
> > will create new tests using rspec and rbehave. They are not mutually
> > exclusive
> Ultimately it's your call, but I'd prefer not going the rspec and
> rbehave route. There are much more important things to do. If you want
> to move toward BDD, using minitest's mini/spec (now included in Ruby
> 1.9, btw) or Shoulda would be a much easier, more tempered step in
> that direction.
Going the rspec and rbehave route is something which I have proven to myself
helps me write really solid code. Not necessary, just what helps me work
better. I will definitely look into mini and shoulda, thanks for the
> > Get "rake docs" working
> > Get "rake website_generate" working
> > With your permission, Trans and George I'm talking to you, I'll put
> > more effort into this and see what I can come up with. None of my
> > will mess with the api, my entire goal is stability and usability. After
> > presenting my initial work to you guys, we can decide where you want to
> > from there.
> That's more than considerate. Since the project has been down for the
> count, I say, feel free to take her where you want. As you can tell
> from my reply I'm still interested in seeing this project succeed and
> am happy to help where as I can.
Well, thank you for your support and I'll keep updating the mailing list as
I go along. I'll keep my requests for major effort on your part to an
minimum. However getting access to rubyforge may be necessary in the next
> > Before I forget, Robert Mela, if your out there. I'd love to get a
> > of your cheatsheets for inclusion in the actual rdocs. Looks like your
> > has been reclaimed by the domain goblins.
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Nitro-general