Vote: take wicketframework.org off of sf.net servers and onto our own box

[Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>]

It has been proposed in several threads, so I'd like to make it more formal:

currently we host wicketframework.org on the sf.net servers. We can
move the content of the site to our own box (provided by
http://servoy.com) and host it there, and redirect traffic from the
sf.net server to the our new box.

Pro's:
 - wicketframework.org will probably be a lot faster.
 - it opens up builds.wicketframework.org, examples.wicketframework.org etc.

Con's:
 - we'll have to update our (read: I have to update my) build
infrastructure for deploying the site
 - we'll be fully responsible for hosting our own site
 - the future is clouded for the domain as we are moving towards
apache infrastructure.

So the vote is:
 [ ] move the domain already, why didn't you do this months ago?
 [ ] keep it as it is, it works now

Martijn

-- 
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org

Re: Vote: take wicketframework.org off of sf.net servers and onto our own box

[Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>]

Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> can we get a zone if we are just incubating?

At this point, I personally would stick with either Sourceforge or Servoy.

The main issue being that zones aren't intended for use for public 
websites, more for demos, tests, builds, etc, and you cannot map a 
domain to a zone (AFAIK), you just get <project>.zones.apache.org.

Where we host examples (a very useful and important thing to host), I 
don't think we're quite ready to resolve that issue yet. Therefore, I 
would say go with Sourceforge or Servoy, whichever makes most 
straightforward sense.

Similarly, eventually, the wicketframework.org domain name should be a 
redirect to wicket.apache.org, and ownership of that domain be 
transferred to Apache. However, I don't quite think we're ready for that 
either. We really need to get a release or two under our belt before we 
can approach those issue.

Regards, Upayavira

> On 1/19/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ...Problem is that to be able to do
>> > that, you need to earn karma, and IMO you won't get karma until you
>> > help administer stuff.
>>
>> Are you aware of the Solaris zones?
>>
>> See http://www.apache.org/dev/solaris-zones.html - I don't know much
>> about what you want to run, but with a zone, the project gets its own
>> virtual Solaris machine, which project members can administrate fairly
>> freely.
>>
>> The Cocoon project, for example, runs live demos and a documentation
>> system there, see http://cocoon.zones.apache.org/ . The performance is
>> usually very good, although it depends on how other zones behave, of
>> course.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
> 

Re: Vote: take wicketframework.org off of sf.net servers and onto our own box

[Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>]

can we get a zone if we are just incubating?

-igor


On 1/19/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...Problem is that to be able to do
> > that, you need to earn karma, and IMO you won't get karma until you
> > help administer stuff.
>
> Are you aware of the Solaris zones?
>
> See http://www.apache.org/dev/solaris-zones.html - I don't know much
> about what you want to run, but with a zone, the project gets its own
> virtual Solaris machine, which project members can administrate fairly
> freely.
>
> The Cocoon project, for example, runs live demos and a documentation
> system there, see http://cocoon.zones.apache.org/ . The performance is
> usually very good, although it depends on how other zones behave, of
> course.
>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: Vote: take wicketframework.org off of sf.net servers and onto our own box

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Problem is that to be able to do
> that, you need to earn karma, and IMO you won't get karma until you
> help administer stuff.

Are you aware of the Solaris zones?

See http://www.apache.org/dev/solaris-zones.html - I don't know much
about what you want to run, but with a zone, the project gets its own
virtual Solaris machine, which project members can administrate fairly
freely.

The Cocoon project, for example, runs live demos and a documentation
system there, see http://cocoon.zones.apache.org/ . The performance is
usually very good, although it depends on how other zones behave, of
course.

-Bertrand

Re: Vote: take wicketframework.org off of sf.net servers and onto our own box

[Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>]

yes i have the same questions as igor.

What do we move completely to Apache?

Is it so that when we have moved then only jira an confluence are still
there
for just Wicket-Stuff?

Everything else, so the auto building and auto deploying and serving of the
latest examples
are done then on the apache servers?

What things does apache give us? What rights do we have?

If we keep bamboo and the examples there then i think we should do this:

wicketframework.org -> wicket.apache.org
builds.wicketframework.org -> ourserver/bamboo
maven.wicketframework.org -> ourserver/maven/reposistory (or are we not
doing this, providing snapshots?)
examples.wicketframework.org  -> ourserver/examples -> pointing to 1.3/2.0
examples

So if this setup is the one we go for then we can move it now and only do
this

wicketframework.org -> ourserver/root
builds.wicketframework.org -> ourserver/bamboo
maven.wicketframework.org -> ourserver/maven/reposistory (or are we not
doing this, providing snapshots?)
examples.wicketframework.org  -> ourserver/examples -> pointing to 1.3/2.0
examples

then we need to do the above for a few months. (and server our own side)

If we don't use the server for anything except wicket stuf (jira/conf) then
i wouldn't bother doing anything right now.

johan



On 1/18/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Using Apache  hardware seems to be a big deal for a community feel and
> > for a legal standpoint (iianm), and /should/ make things easier. If we
> > get migraines from dealing with the apache process, then we should get
> > more involved in the infra team. Problem is that to be able to do
> > that, you need to earn karma, and IMO you won't get karma until you
> > help administer stuff.
>
>
> you mean they will let us host bamboo, our examples, etc with us having
> access to that stuff easily? why dont we do that now then? also what is
> the
> hold up with our new website then? i thought you had trouble doing an
> export
> or something because of apache confluence permission foobar?
>
> I don't see the need to register another domain name yet. Isn't the
> > whole point of the server to have it host all our stuff? Just moving
> > wicketframework.org to the servoy box, and add the subdomains is not
> > too much I think?
>
>
> once the domain is transferred to apache will we still be able to have the
> subdomains?
>
>
> > [...]
> > The current 1.2.x sites can easily be put on the box. They only
> > require a static filesystem. I recon a simple rsync between the two
> > servers is all it takes to mirror the current content.
>
>
> no doubt, and we can update them easily. but if we are going to do that
> why
> not just do the confluence import thing and the new skin now as well?
>
> -igor
>
>
>
> Martijn
> >
> > On 1/18/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > we could register wicketstuff.org, host our website there until we are
> > ready
> > > to move it to apache, we can even setup our confluence install there
> to
> > > export our website to apache so we dont have to go through headaches
> > >
> > > just dont think of wicketstuff.org as related directly to
> > > wicket-stuff.sf.net
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It has been proposed in several threads, so I'd like to make it more
> > > > formal:
> > > >
> > > > currently we host wicketframework.org on the sf.net servers. We can
> > > > move the content of the site to our own box (provided by
> > > > http://servoy.com) and host it there, and redirect traffic from the
> > > > sf.net server to the our new box.
> > > >
> > > > Pro's:
> > > > - wicketframework.org will probably be a lot faster.
> > > > - it opens up builds.wicketframework.org,
> > examples.wicketframework.orgetc.
> > > >
> > > > Con's:
> > > > - we'll have to update our (read: I have to update my) build
> > > > infrastructure for deploying the site
> > > > - we'll be fully responsible for hosting our own site
> > > > - the future is clouded for the domain as we are moving towards
> > > > apache infrastructure.
> > > >
> > > > So the vote is:
> > > > [ ] move the domain already, why didn't you do this months ago?
> > > > [ ] keep it as it is, it works now
> > > >
> > > > Martijn
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Vote for Wicket at the
> > > > http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> > > > Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> > > > http://wicketframework.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Vote for Wicket at the
> > http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> > Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> > http://wicketframework.org
> >
>
>

Re: Vote: take wicketframework.org off of sf.net servers and onto our own box

[Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>]

On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Using Apache  hardware seems to be a big deal for a community feel and
> for a legal standpoint (iianm), and /should/ make things easier. If we
> get migraines from dealing with the apache process, then we should get
> more involved in the infra team. Problem is that to be able to do
> that, you need to earn karma, and IMO you won't get karma until you
> help administer stuff.


you mean they will let us host bamboo, our examples, etc with us having
access to that stuff easily? why dont we do that now then? also what is the
hold up with our new website then? i thought you had trouble doing an export
or something because of apache confluence permission foobar?

I don't see the need to register another domain name yet. Isn't the
> whole point of the server to have it host all our stuff? Just moving
> wicketframework.org to the servoy box, and add the subdomains is not
> too much I think?


once the domain is transferred to apache will we still be able to have the
subdomains?


> [...]
> The current 1.2.x sites can easily be put on the box. They only
> require a static filesystem. I recon a simple rsync between the two
> servers is all it takes to mirror the current content.


no doubt, and we can update them easily. but if we are going to do that why
not just do the confluence import thing and the new skin now as well?

-igor



Martijn
>
> On 1/18/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > we could register wicketstuff.org, host our website there until we are
> ready
> > to move it to apache, we can even setup our confluence install there to
> > export our website to apache so we dont have to go through headaches
> >
> > just dont think of wicketstuff.org as related directly to
> > wicket-stuff.sf.net
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It has been proposed in several threads, so I'd like to make it more
> > > formal:
> > >
> > > currently we host wicketframework.org on the sf.net servers. We can
> > > move the content of the site to our own box (provided by
> > > http://servoy.com) and host it there, and redirect traffic from the
> > > sf.net server to the our new box.
> > >
> > > Pro's:
> > > - wicketframework.org will probably be a lot faster.
> > > - it opens up builds.wicketframework.org,
> examples.wicketframework.orgetc.
> > >
> > > Con's:
> > > - we'll have to update our (read: I have to update my) build
> > > infrastructure for deploying the site
> > > - we'll be fully responsible for hosting our own site
> > > - the future is clouded for the domain as we are moving towards
> > > apache infrastructure.
> > >
> > > So the vote is:
> > > [ ] move the domain already, why didn't you do this months ago?
> > > [ ] keep it as it is, it works now
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > > --
> > > Vote for Wicket at the
> > > http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> > > Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> > > http://wicketframework.org
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Vote for Wicket at the
> http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>

Re: Vote: take wicketframework.org off of sf.net servers and onto our own box

[Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>]

Using Apache  hardware seems to be a big deal for a community feel and
for a legal standpoint (iianm), and /should/ make things easier. If we
get migraines from dealing with the apache process, then we should get
more involved in the infra team. Problem is that to be able to do
that, you need to earn karma, and IMO you won't get karma until you
help administer stuff.

I don't see the need to register another domain name yet. Isn't the
whole point of the server to have it host all our stuff? Just moving
wicketframework.org to the servoy box, and add the subdomains is not
too much I think? Even if it is for a couple of weeks/months. the
wicketframework.org domain can then point to wicket.apache.org, and
the sub domains to the apache build server, or our own if that is
needed.

The current 1.2.x sites can easily be put on the box. They only
require a static filesystem. I recon a simple rsync between the two
servers is all it takes to mirror the current content.

Martijn

On 1/18/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> we could register wicketstuff.org, host our website there until we are ready
> to move it to apache, we can even setup our confluence install there to
> export our website to apache so we dont have to go through headaches
>
> just dont think of wicketstuff.org as related directly to
> wicket-stuff.sf.net
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It has been proposed in several threads, so I'd like to make it more
> > formal:
> >
> > currently we host wicketframework.org on the sf.net servers. We can
> > move the content of the site to our own box (provided by
> > http://servoy.com) and host it there, and redirect traffic from the
> > sf.net server to the our new box.
> >
> > Pro's:
> > - wicketframework.org will probably be a lot faster.
> > - it opens up builds.wicketframework.org, examples.wicketframework.orgetc.
> >
> > Con's:
> > - we'll have to update our (read: I have to update my) build
> > infrastructure for deploying the site
> > - we'll be fully responsible for hosting our own site
> > - the future is clouded for the domain as we are moving towards
> > apache infrastructure.
> >
> > So the vote is:
> > [ ] move the domain already, why didn't you do this months ago?
> > [ ] keep it as it is, it works now
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > --
> > Vote for Wicket at the
> > http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> > Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> > http://wicketframework.org
> >
>
>


-- 
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org

Re: Vote: take wicketframework.org off of sf.net servers and onto our own box

[Justin Lee <jl...@antwerkz.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

That name is almost guaranteed to result in confusion and questions on
the users list.

Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> we could register wicketstuff.org, host our website there until we are
> ready
> to move it to apache, we can even setup our confluence install there to
> export our website to apache so we dont have to go through headaches
> 
> just dont think of wicketstuff.org as related directly to
> wicket-stuff.sf.net
> 
> -igor
> 
> 
> On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It has been proposed in several threads, so I'd like to make it more
>> formal:
>>
>> currently we host wicketframework.org on the sf.net servers. We can
>> move the content of the site to our own box (provided by
>> http://servoy.com) and host it there, and redirect traffic from the
>> sf.net server to the our new box.
>>
>> Pro's:
>> - wicketframework.org will probably be a lot faster.
>> - it opens up builds.wicketframework.org,
>> examples.wicketframework.orgetc.
>>
>> Con's:
>> - we'll have to update our (read: I have to update my) build
>> infrastructure for deploying the site
>> - we'll be fully responsible for hosting our own site
>> - the future is clouded for the domain as we are moving towards
>> apache infrastructure.
>>
>> So the vote is:
>> [ ] move the domain already, why didn't you do this months ago?
>> [ ] keep it as it is, it works now
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> -- 
>> Vote for Wicket at the
>> http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
>> Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
>> http://wicketframework.org
>>
> 

- --
Justin Lee
http://www.antwerkz.com
AIM : evan chooly
Skype : evanchooly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFFr/UnJnQfEGuJ90MRA44ZAJ97ZQKyvg1m15+GfwRxbqUJRcmvCQCeIbuX
xhCu48atAxmQR3H8utjkbNs=
=8GFW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Vote: take wicketframework.org off of sf.net servers and onto our own box

[Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>]

we could register wicketstuff.org, host our website there until we are ready
to move it to apache, we can even setup our confluence install there to
export our website to apache so we dont have to go through headaches

just dont think of wicketstuff.org as related directly to
wicket-stuff.sf.net

-igor


On 1/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It has been proposed in several threads, so I'd like to make it more
> formal:
>
> currently we host wicketframework.org on the sf.net servers. We can
> move the content of the site to our own box (provided by
> http://servoy.com) and host it there, and redirect traffic from the
> sf.net server to the our new box.
>
> Pro's:
> - wicketframework.org will probably be a lot faster.
> - it opens up builds.wicketframework.org, examples.wicketframework.orgetc.
>
> Con's:
> - we'll have to update our (read: I have to update my) build
> infrastructure for deploying the site
> - we'll be fully responsible for hosting our own site
> - the future is clouded for the domain as we are moving towards
> apache infrastructure.
>
> So the vote is:
> [ ] move the domain already, why didn't you do this months ago?
> [ ] keep it as it is, it works now
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Vote for Wicket at the
> http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>