You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@attic.apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> on 2008/12/08 22:07:22 UTC
Getting started
[I've bcc'd the private list so that people know the general one is
there. Just in case anyone is not on both]
I'm guilty of work and family taking up all my time. So here's a
rushed lunch break kick off to things.
Wiki page where interim thought went is at
http://wiki.apache.org/general/OldProjectProposal - as a reminder in
case anyone has forgotten things. Here are the action items as I see
them:
* Put together an Attic page on www.apache.org. I don't think we need
our own site, unless we get told we have to. Said page is to:
** Explain what the Attic is.
** Explain criteria for joining the attic - indicate that it is at a
project or a board's request.
** Define steps generally taken to put a site in the attic.
Unless someone else wants to do it, I'll go ahead and put together a
drafted page on people.apache.org and then we can argue :)
Hen
Re: Getting started
Posted by Thomas Vandahl <tv...@apache.org>.
Upayavira wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 16:38 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> If something is retired to the attic, it needs to be retired. That is,
> its docs need to move. Just as with incubation, we need labeling. If we
> just leave docs where they are, there is no indication whatever that
> anything has changed.
Agreed.
I'd like to suggest that in addition to that a link from the main page
at www.apache.org would be nice, so that people are told "if you don't
find it here, it may have moved to the attic."
Bye, Thomas.
Re: Getting started
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 11/12/2008, at 5:57 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> The problem with moving a project within the Attic namespace, is the
> sheer amount of work involved. We have TLPs who have promoted out of a
> project who have not managed to do that work and instead still have
> their own site, or no site at all.
Yes, we need to keep that to a minimum. I would suggest with the first
one we do, if we can't script it we don't do it :)
>
> * Close PMC down.
> * SVN read only.
> * Add banner to websites.
> * Contextual email to user list once a year saying it's dead. Suggest
> alternative projects.
> * Kill the dev list.
> * README on archives.
> * Kill builds.
> * JIRA: Move to Retired projects. Update description. Point url to
> attic. (Make retired projects commentable?)
> * Bugzilla: Stop new issues.
>
> How does that sound? What's missing, what's wrong, what's poorly
> explained?
I think moving the site as is will be ok. If we redirect deep links to
the new location then it should keep working, and the front page can
be directed to the more explanatory page.
Should remove their last releases from the main site (just
archive.apache.org)?
I can't think of anything else right now - but we might learn better
by doing if there is already a suitable candidate? IIRC there was
already at least one voluntary retirement on the cards.
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Getting started
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 16:38 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Dunno - would it have more than one page?
>> >
>> > I was thinking www.apache.org/attic/ which then links to the old
>> > locations for the docs etc. However... seeing as attic.apache.org
>> > exists might as well stick the page there :)
>>
>> Wouldn't we inherit information about the retired projects and need to
>> link their old docs and stuff up?
>>
>> Otherwise, how do you need what is in the Attic? For instance, if
>> Project X retire subproject Y to Attic, it is not reasonable to assume
>> that the documentation of Y will be hosted by Project X. Two
>> generations of developers later, we should assume they forgot all
>> about Y and not maintain Y's docs anymore.
>
> If something is retired to the attic, it needs to be retired. That is,
> its docs need to move. Just as with incubation, we need labeling. If we
> just leave docs where they are, there is no indication whatever that
> anything has changed.
>
> Take Apache Jabba. A state of the art graphical interface for the
> Commodore 64. No developers anymore (I wonder why), so it moves to:
>
> http://attic.apache.org/jabba
>
> Of course, there are redirects/links from jabba.apache.org to the attic
> site. Ideally a page would have a "what is the attic" link, but I'm sure
> most folks could work that out by just going to http://attic.apache.org.
The problem with moving a project within the Attic namespace, is the
sheer amount of work involved. We have TLPs who have promoted out of a
project who have not managed to do that work and instead still have
their own site, or no site at all.
I agree though that just leaving things where they are isn't enough as
it looks like business as usual. I think the better solution is to
mark those documents (or svn location, or JIRA project, or wiki etc)
as having had their project moved to the Attic. Trying to migrate
things and keep the old urls happy etc is unnecessary make-work imo.
On the plus side - we've identified our first major discussion topic,
so doing well. :) Here's what we had as a first draft at ApacheCon
(and on the OldProjectProposal project page):
* Close PMC down.
* SVN read only.
* Add banner to websites.
* Contextual email to user list once a year saying it's dead. Suggest
alternative projects.
* Kill the dev list.
* README on archives.
* Kill builds.
* JIRA: Move to Retired projects. Update description. Point url to
attic. (Make retired projects commentable?)
* Bugzilla: Stop new issues.
How does that sound? What's missing, what's wrong, what's poorly explained?
Hen
Re: Getting started
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 16:38 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Dunno - would it have more than one page?
> >
> > I was thinking www.apache.org/attic/ which then links to the old
> > locations for the docs etc. However... seeing as attic.apache.org
> > exists might as well stick the page there :)
>
> Wouldn't we inherit information about the retired projects and need to
> link their old docs and stuff up?
>
> Otherwise, how do you need what is in the Attic? For instance, if
> Project X retire subproject Y to Attic, it is not reasonable to assume
> that the documentation of Y will be hosted by Project X. Two
> generations of developers later, we should assume they forgot all
> about Y and not maintain Y's docs anymore.
If something is retired to the attic, it needs to be retired. That is,
its docs need to move. Just as with incubation, we need labeling. If we
just leave docs where they are, there is no indication whatever that
anything has changed.
Take Apache Jabba. A state of the art graphical interface for the
Commodore 64. No developers anymore (I wonder why), so it moves to:
http://attic.apache.org/jabba
Of course, there are redirects/links from jabba.apache.org to the attic
site. Ideally a page would have a "what is the attic" link, but I'm sure
most folks could work that out by just going to http://attic.apache.org.
Upayavira
Re: Getting started
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dunno - would it have more than one page?
>
> I was thinking www.apache.org/attic/ which then links to the old
> locations for the docs etc. However... seeing as attic.apache.org
> exists might as well stick the page there :)
Wouldn't we inherit information about the retired projects and need to
link their old docs and stuff up?
Otherwise, how do you need what is in the Attic? For instance, if
Project X retire subproject Y to Attic, it is not reasonable to assume
that the documentation of Y will be hosted by Project X. Two
generations of developers later, we should assume they forgot all
about Y and not maintain Y's docs anymore.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Getting started
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> <fair enough>
>
>> I think it'll depend on project - some might make sense to allow bug
>> reports to still come in. Definitely makes sense to keep user lists
>> open I think. Much of the aim is to have a project still useable -
>> rather than vanishing overnight into a hard to find corner of the ASF.
>
> So, wouldn't this then mean that Attic should be seen as
> http://attic.apache.org ?
Dunno - would it have more than one page?
I was thinking www.apache.org/attic/ which then links to the old
locations for the docs etc. However... seeing as attic.apache.org
exists might as well stick the page there :)
Hen
Re: Getting started
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
<fair enough>
> I think it'll depend on project - some might make sense to allow bug
> reports to still come in. Definitely makes sense to keep user lists
> open I think. Much of the aim is to have a project still useable -
> rather than vanishing overnight into a hard to find corner of the ASF.
So, wouldn't this then mean that Attic should be seen as
http://attic.apache.org ?
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Getting started
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:07 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> ** Explain what the Attic is.
>
> Yes, I would like to know that;
>
> Let's say that a project X is used widely around the world. It is so
> complete, low-level and bug-free that noone ever touches the code. But
> it is still very useful, popular and indispensable for what it does.
> Is this a candidate for Attic?
Could be. If it no longer has a developer community - defined by being
unable to obtain 3 release votes, no longer belonging to a PMC or
selected for the attic by its pmc - then it is a candidate. Being in
the attic is our admission to the users that there is no developer
community surrounding the product and they should look to themselves
and other users if they have any issues.
Bug-free is a tricky one. I've not seen such a thing, but if we did
have something then you could argue that it has a developer community
until the moment arrived (bug report) in which they would have to be
seen.
> If so, is it fair that it is called "Attic", since it gives the
> impression "We chuck it away so that no more people use it.". I think
> it boils down to a question that have been with me for a while; "Does
> a project need a community for me to really use it?"
I think it'll depend on project - some might make sense to allow bug
reports to still come in. Definitely makes sense to keep user lists
open I think. Much of the aim is to have a project still useable -
rather than vanishing overnight into a hard to find corner of the ASF.
Hen
Re: Getting started
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:07 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> ** Explain what the Attic is.
Yes, I would like to know that;
Let's say that a project X is used widely around the world. It is so
complete, low-level and bug-free that noone ever touches the code. But
it is still very useful, popular and indispensable for what it does.
Is this a candidate for Attic?
If so, is it fair that it is called "Attic", since it gives the
impression "We chuck it away so that no more people use it.". I think
it boils down to a question that have been with me for a while; "Does
a project need a community for me to really use it?"
Curious!
Niclas