On 03/13/2014 10:00 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:54 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: >>> After looking at it for some time, my optimistic outlook >>> on the project would be +0 vote at best. >>> >>> On the plus side, the community seems to be really active >>> and reasonably diverse. But if feels, like ASF has not yet >>> become a true home for the project. >>> >>> Here's what I'm talking about: as a casual bystander who >>> was trying to view Allura as an ASF project -- I had difficult >>> time. First of all, I couldn't even get to the releases easily >>> enough: https://incubator.apache.org/allura/downloads.html >>> When I managed to get there the first thing that the README >>> instructed me to do is to go to https://forge-allura.apache.org/ >>> What is that? How does it relate to the project? >>> >>> In fact, from the dev list it feels like there may be yet another >>> canonical place for the Allura -- over at sourceforge: >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-allura-dev/201402.mbox/%3C52F80CA5.8060209%40brondsema.net%3E >>> >>> I am not quite sure if penalizing the project with a failed graduation >>> vote is the right thing to do, but the state of the outwards facing >>> project assets doesn't inspire a feel of a strong ASF community in me >>> >>> Just my 2c worth of feedback. >>> >> >> The projects bug tracker also seems to be at sourceforge.net, which >> means you need a sf.net account to participate in the project. Based >> on a quick perusal most of the dev@ traffic seems to be bug tracker - >> which means most of this is happening at SourceForge. I don't know >> that this is really problematic - we do have projects using github as >> the main portion of the contribution workflow, but it does give me >> pause. >> >> I also see http://sf.net/p/allura - which bears a SF logo, and which >> doesn't note the fact that the project is at the incubator until 1/2 >> down the page. And nowhere on the page is it referred to as Apache >> Allura. From a standpoint of the project which is supposed to be >> policing its brand, this leaves me a bit worried - this page shows an >> update to that page recently; and appears at least to the outside >> world to be the nexus for the project and maintained by members of the >> PPMC. (first return on Google is the sourceforge link.) To be clear >> other projects have listings at Sourceforge, so aside from the brand >> and trademark policing that needs to happen, I am not sure the >> existence of the page is much to be concerned about. >> >> There's a notice on the page that reads: "Some project information is >> still at SourceForge during this transition period." and indeed, >> there's http://allura.sourceforge.net/docs/ which looks surprisingly >> good when compared with http://incubator.apache.org/allura which >> doesn't have a working bug tracker link, and steps listed for building >> Allura consists of 'TODO'. All of the content from the allure source >> forge site appears to be in the Apache Allura git repo, so I am >> curious why it isn't published at the ASF. And again, we have projects >> who host documentation at ReadTheDocs, so I am not sure that >> documentation living elsewhere is an inherent problem, but it gives me >> pause. >> >> Individually I don't know that any of these are problematic; but I am >> curious what the mentors take on it is. >> >> --David > > > And it's just dawned on me what's happening. > The project is using http://forge-allura.apache.org/p/allura as it's > home page instead of http://incubator.apache.org/allura which appears > to have all of the appropriate content (according to a google cache) > but is down right now. It's making more sense; is the intention to > make that the project home page? (e.g. allura.apache.org) >
You got it! (And bad timing that it was down for several hours today - its back up now). Roman and sebb had similar comments to yours, so I'll respond in a single email. We are self-hosting at http://forge-allura.apache.org/p/allura so that is really our "home page". It has a clear download link, and git browse link, and the text doesn't equate the project == the software. But it is missing a link to http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. (Note this domain forge-allura.a.o also has the future potential to be a project hosting platform for other interested Apache projects besides Allura itself) http://incubator.apache.org/allura is not maintained as is obvious. That should just go away or be redirected to forge-allura.apache.org/p/allura Similarly when we're a TLP, allura.apache.org can just redirect there. We should update http://sf.net/p/allura to remove the SF logo, and clearly identify it as Apache Allura and incubating, so it adheres with Apache branding guidelines. The docs at http://allura.sourceforge.net/docs/ could be moved to live at a URL like http://forge-allura.apache.org/p/allura/docs with a little work. No reason not to. Tickets are the other item still on SourceForge. We do want to move them over to the forge-allura.a.o host, but to be frank its going to be quite a lot of work and we haven't gotten to it. The SourceForge ticket tracker is configured to send ticket activity to the allura-dev list so there is visibility and transparency to ticket activity. We didn't think it'd be a graduation blocker to have tickets on a different host. As has been mentioned, other projects have tickets elsewhere too. I hope this helps clarify the situation. We will work on polishing up the remaining rough edges (perhaps everything except tickets location) in the next few days and then provide an update again on this thread. Thanks -- Dave Brondsema : d...@brondsema.net http://www.brondsema.net : personal http://www.splike.com : programming <><
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
