4:44 p.m.
No not http://fedoracommunity.org but
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ It has been in beta for 2
years now. What do we need to do to finish it (maybe make it
start.fedoraproject.org?) or put it aside for other things to do?
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
4:58 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 03:44:46PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
No not http://fedoracommunity.org but
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ It has been in beta for 2
years now. What do we need to do to finish it (maybe make it
start.fedoraproject.org?) or put it aside for other things to do?
It's inappropriate for start.fp.o as it's largely got Fedora Contributor
content and start.fp.o was aimed at users. Other than that, I don't know.
-Toshio
4:53 p.m.
Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Tue Jul 05 17:44:46 -0400 2011:
No not http://fedoracommunity.org but
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ It has been in beta for 2
years now. What do we need to do to finish it (maybe make it
start.fedoraproject.org?) or put it aside for other things to do?
This app was never really intended to ever be "finished". It was meant
to be a platform for building widgets to visualize Fedora data. However,
I do think it's definitely still 'beta' quality, and the original
authors (J5, Mo, and I), have not had the cycles to continue to improve
it. We accomplished our initial goals, and then got pulled into
different directions (one of which was working on the core of the
platform, Moksha).
Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and find it
to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not have any idea
as to how many people are using it. I think we should do some log
analysis, and maybe a survey to see what people like/dislike/want. Also,
Mo did a usability study at FUDCon many moons ago, and we have yet to
really sit down and analyze the results.
So, in order to remove the 'beta' from fedoracommunity, I would
personally like the see the following happen:
* Polish up the interface, and make it *much* snappier.
Right now the interface feels very clunky, and the full page
reloads when clicking on certain areas is killing us. There
is still a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of optimization.
* Re-branding, marketing, and a better URL.
"Fedora Community" has become an overloaded term, and has since been
associated with the language-specific subcommunity portals. We also
don't link to the app from anywhere, and the URL is not the
easiest to remember.
* Documentation.
Right now there is no documentation that guides people through
building a new app/widget using our infrastructure's APIs.
Copying/pasting existing code has made contributing painful.
With regard to the claims that the AGPL makes this app difficult to
maintain -- I honestly cannot recall a single case where we had to
hotfix it and jump through the AGPL hoops. If anything, this helped us
figure out what it takes to develop, deploy, and maintain both
TurboGears2 and AGPL applications.
Spot, J5 and I will be meeting next Thursday to draft a potential
roadmap going forward.
Personally, I envision the following improvements and additions (as I
mentioned at the last FUDCon):
* Mailing list interface (a decent amount of code already written)
* Meeting app, to visualize our meetbot output (some code written)
* SIG dashboards, with action items, SOPs, packages, people, meetings, etc
* Package review app
* Improved upstream integration & adoption
* Nightly spin analysis
* Source-level code/diff viewer for auditing/annotations/linking
* Realtime message broker integration into our existing infrastructure
* Realtime widgets to visualize these live data streams
luke
5:06 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 21:53 +0000, Luke Macken wrote:
Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and find
it
to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not have any idea
as to how many people are using it. I think we should do some log
analysis, and maybe a survey to see what people like/dislike/want. Also,
Mo did a usability study at FUDCon many moons ago, and we have yet to
really sit down and analyze the results.
FWIW:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCommunity/UsabilityTestingRound1
The analysis I put together is here, but we never sat down and went
through it and determined the right solution for each:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCommunity/UsabilityTestingRound1/Anal...
So, in order to remove the 'beta' from fedoracommunity, I
would
personally like the see the following happen:
* Polish up the interface, and make it *much* snappier.
Right now the interface feels very clunky, and the full page
reloads when clicking on certain areas is killing us. There
is still a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of optimization.
Need to update to the new 960.gs template too since the old Fedora css
is going away.
Spot, J5 and I will be meeting next Thursday to draft a potential
roadmap going forward.
I'd be interested in joining if you wouldn't mind...
¬m
7:10 p.m.
Excerpts from Máirín Duffy's message of Wed Jul 06 18:06:13 -0400 2011:
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 21:53 +0000, Luke Macken wrote:
> Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and find it
> to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not have any idea
> as to how many people are using it. I think we should do some log
> analysis, and maybe a survey to see what people like/dislike/want. Also,
> Mo did a usability study at FUDCon many moons ago, and we have yet to
> really sit down and analyze the results.
FWIW:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCommunity/UsabilityTestingRound1
The analysis I put together is here, but we never sat down and went
through it and determined the right solution for each:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCommunity/UsabilityTestingRound1/Anal...
Oh, excellent!
> Spot, J5 and I will be meeting next Thursday to draft a
potential
> roadmap going forward.
I'd be interested in joining if you wouldn't mind...
Of course! Sorry, I meant to include you in that original list :)
luke
12:34 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 21:53 +0000, Luke Macken wrote:
> Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and find
> it
> to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not have any
> idea
> as to how many people are using it. I think we should do some log
> analysis, and maybe a survey to see what people like/dislike/want.
> Also,
> Mo did a usability study at FUDCon many moons ago, and we have yet
> to
> really sit down and analyze the results.
FWIW:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCommunity/UsabilityTestingRound1
The analysis I put together is here, but we never sat down and went
through it and determined the right solution for each:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCommunity/UsabilityTestingRound1/Anal...
> So, in order to remove the 'beta' from fedoracommunity, I would
> personally like the see the following happen:
>
> * Polish up the interface, and make it *much* snappier.
> Right now the interface feels very clunky, and the full page
> reloads when clicking on certain areas is killing us. There
> is still a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of optimization.
Need to update to the new 960.gs template too since the old Fedora css
is going away.
>
> Spot, J5 and I will be meeting next Thursday to draft a potential
> roadmap going forward.
I'd be interested in joining if you wouldn't mind...
¬m
Sorry, I've been in the mist of geting a major rewrite of PyGObject Introspection
through review and purchasing a house so I missed this discussion. The PyGObject stuff is
the reason I haven't had time to work on Fedora Community. Since python support for
GTK+ underlies a lot of our tools this became the priority. The rewrite should get
approval by next week in which case I will have time to start dedicating to finishing off
Fedora Community.
In my opinion optimizing should entail focusing on the package views and search which have
the most useful information and building out each section as individual web apps which do
not require page reloads.
--
John (J5) Palmieri
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
6:34 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 15:53, Luke Macken <lmacken(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Tue Jul 05
17:44:46 -0400 2011:
> No not http://fedoracommunity.org but
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ It has been in beta for 2
> years now. What do we need to do to finish it (maybe make it
> start.fedoraproject.org?) or put it aside for other things to do?
This app was never really intended to ever be "finished". It was meant
to be a platform for building widgets to visualize Fedora data. However,
I do think it's definitely still 'beta' quality, and the original
authors (J5, Mo, and I), have not had the cycles to continue to improve
it. We accomplished our initial goals, and then got pulled into
different directions (one of which was working on the core of the
platform, Moksha).
Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and find it
to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not have any idea
as to how many people are using it. I think we should do some log
Did the following quick statistics using awk:
Currently we are seeing 380->420 unique ip addresses per month who are
not bots or not referrals from other sites. Most go to /community/ but
~100 of them made queries beyond standard page data (images,
javascript, and /community/). While it doesn't sound a lot.. for a
site that doesn't have a lot of advertising it is an audience.
analysis, and maybe a survey to see what people like/dislike/want.
Also,
Mo did a usability study at FUDCon many moons ago, and we have yet to
really sit down and analyze the results.
So, in order to remove the 'beta' from fedoracommunity, I would
personally like the see the following happen:
* Polish up the interface, and make it *much* snappier.
Right now the interface feels very clunky, and the full page
reloads when clicking on certain areas is killing us. There
is still a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of optimization.
* Re-branding, marketing, and a better URL.
"Fedora Community" has become an overloaded term, and has since been
associated with the language-specific subcommunity portals. We also
don't link to the app from anywhere, and the URL is not the
easiest to remember.
* Documentation.
Right now there is no documentation that guides people through
building a new app/widget using our infrastructure's APIs.
Copying/pasting existing code has made contributing painful.
With regard to the claims that the AGPL makes this app difficult to
maintain -- I honestly cannot recall a single case where we had to
hotfix it and jump through the AGPL hoops. If anything, this helped us
figure out what it takes to develop, deploy, and maintain both
TurboGears2 and AGPL applications.
We did it twice right after it was deployed. We went one way in how we
were going to do this and had to undo it the next day when Tom got
clarification that pointing to tickets/patches was not acceptable. If
we could move to Apache or just GPL I would be quite happy. My memory
of it was that there was a bunch of stuff having to be done right
then, but it is a memory and probably not a good one.
My main concern has been about having something that was having code
rot because other priorities had taken the programmers away. We have
had to do some soul searching on services we offer and if the code was
not going to get much development time was it something infrastructure
could keep up (eg like blogs, asterisk, etc)
Spot, J5 and I will be meeting next Thursday to draft a potential
roadmap going forward.
Personally, I envision the following improvements and additions (as I
mentioned at the last FUDCon):
* Mailing list interface (a decent amount of code already written)
* Meeting app, to visualize our meetbot output (some code written)
* SIG dashboards, with action items, SOPs, packages, people, meetings, etc
* Package review app
* Improved upstream integration & adoption
* Nightly spin analysis
* Source-level code/diff viewer for auditing/annotations/linking
* Realtime message broker integration into our existing infrastructure
* Realtime widgets to visualize these live data streams
luke
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
6:47 p.m.
If I can just toss in my 2 cents: I joined up on this when I thought
I was going to contribute as a build/release manager for Fedora. I
wound up going the Ambassador route instead, but I think the tool is
great and I'd love to see it mature. I still plan on doing release
management down the road and from what I see right now, this would be
a great default homepage for status on those activities. Also, it's
quite useful in planning a Fedora Remix to search out packages,
maintainers and versions despite the browser interface overhead :)
I personally vote (unofficially, of course) to enhance and release it.
Cheers,
Christian Bryant | Los Angeles, CA
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:christianabryant
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:christianabryant
http://www.linux.com/community/blogs/blogger/christianabryant/
http://identi.ca/christianabryant
4096R/418C1BBA 39B5 C0D0 D57F 5FC9 11C8 7A01 8B2F 0A9F 418C 1BBA
----- Message from smooge(a)gmail.com ---------
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0600
From: Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fedora Community
To: Fedora Infrastructure <infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Cc: spot(a)fedoraproject.org, websites
<websites(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>, duffy(a)redhat.com
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 15:53, Luke Macken <lmacken(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Tue Jul 05 17:44:46
> -0400 2011:
>> No not http://fedoracommunity.org but
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ It has been in beta for 2
>> years now. What do we need to do to finish it (maybe make it
>> start.fedoraproject.org?) or put it aside for other things to do?
>
> This app was never really intended to ever be "finished". It was meant
> to be a platform for building widgets to visualize Fedora data. However,
> I do think it's definitely still 'beta' quality, and the original
> authors (J5, Mo, and I), have not had the cycles to continue to improve
> it. We accomplished our initial goals, and then got pulled into
> different directions (one of which was working on the core of the
> platform, Moksha).
>
> Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and find it
> to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not have any idea
> as to how many people are using it. I think we should do some log
Did the following quick statistics using awk:
Currently we are seeing 380->420 unique ip addresses per month who are
not bots or not referrals from other sites. Most go to /community/ but
~100 of them made queries beyond standard page data (images,
javascript, and /community/). While it doesn't sound a lot.. for a
site that doesn't have a lot of advertising it is an audience.
> analysis, and maybe a survey to see what people like/dislike/want. Also,
> Mo did a usability study at FUDCon many moons ago, and we have yet to
> really sit down and analyze the results.
>
> So, in order to remove the 'beta' from fedoracommunity, I would
> personally like the see the following happen:
>
> * Polish up the interface, and make it *much* snappier.
> Right now the interface feels very clunky, and
> the full page
> reloads when clicking on certain areas is
> killing us. There
> is still a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of
> optimization.
>
> * Re-branding, marketing, and a better URL.
> "Fedora Community" has become an overloaded
> term, and has since been
> associated with the language-specific
> subcommunity portals. We also
> don't link to the app from anywhere, and the
> URL is not the
> easiest to remember.
>
> * Documentation.
> Right now there is no documentation that guides
> people through
> building a new app/widget using our
> infrastructure's APIs.
> Copying/pasting existing code has made
> contributing painful.
>
> With regard to the claims that the AGPL makes this app difficult to
> maintain -- I honestly cannot recall a single case where we had to
> hotfix it and jump through the AGPL hoops. If anything, this helped us
> figure out what it takes to develop, deploy, and maintain both
> TurboGears2 and AGPL applications.
We did it twice right after it was deployed. We went one way in how we
were going to do this and had to undo it the next day when Tom got
clarification that pointing to tickets/patches was not acceptable. If
we could move to Apache or just GPL I would be quite happy. My memory
of it was that there was a bunch of stuff having to be done right
then, but it is a memory and probably not a good one.
My main concern has been about having something that was having code
rot because other priorities had taken the programmers away. We have
had to do some soul searching on services we offer and if the code was
not going to get much development time was it something infrastructure
could keep up (eg like blogs, asterisk, etc)
> Spot, J5 and I will be meeting next Thursday to draft a potential
> roadmap going forward.
>
> Personally, I envision the following improvements and additions (as I
> mentioned at the last FUDCon):
>
> * Mailing list interface (a decent amount of code
> already written)
> * Meeting app, to visualize our meetbot output (some
> code written)
> * SIG dashboards, with action items, SOPs, packages,
> people, meetings, etc
> * Package review app
> * Improved upstream integration & adoption
> * Nightly spin analysis
> * Source-level code/diff viewer for
> auditing/annotations/linking
> * Realtime message broker integration into our
> existing infrastructure
> * Realtime widgets to visualize these live data streams
>
> luke
> _______________________________________________
> infrastructure mailing list
> infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
--
websites mailing list
websites(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/websites
----- End message from smooge(a)gmail.com -----
7:22 p.m.
Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Wed Jul 06 19:34:46 -0400 2011:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 15:53, Luke Macken <lmacken(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Tue Jul 05 17:44:46 -0400 2011:
>> No not http://fedoracommunity.org but
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ It has been in beta for 2
>> years now. What do we need to do to finish it (maybe make it
>> start.fedoraproject.org?) or put it aside for other things to do?
>
> This app was never really intended to ever be "finished". It was meant
> to be a platform for building widgets to visualize Fedora data. However,
> I do think it's definitely still 'beta' quality, and the original
> authors (J5, Mo, and I), have not had the cycles to continue to improve
> it. We accomplished our initial goals, and then got pulled into
> different directions (one of which was working on the core of the
> platform, Moksha).
>
> Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and find it
> to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not have any idea
> as to how many people are using it. I think we should do some log
Did the following quick statistics using awk:
Currently we are seeing 380->420 unique ip addresses per month who are
not bots or not referrals from other sites. Most go to /community/ but
~100 of them made queries beyond standard page data (images,
javascript, and /community/). While it doesn't sound a lot.. for a
site that doesn't have a lot of advertising it is an audience.
Wow, yeah, that's more of an audience than I expected. Thanks for
figuring that out.
> With regard to the claims that the AGPL makes this app difficult
to
> maintain -- I honestly cannot recall a single case where we had to
> hotfix it and jump through the AGPL hoops. If anything, this helped us
> figure out what it takes to develop, deploy, and maintain both
> TurboGears2 and AGPL applications.
We did it twice right after it was deployed. We went one way in how we
were going to do this and had to undo it the next day when Tom got
clarification that pointing to tickets/patches was not acceptable. If
we could move to Apache or just GPL I would be quite happy. My memory
of it was that there was a bunch of stuff having to be done right
then, but it is a memory and probably not a good one.
Are you sure we got clarification that pointing to tickets was *not*
acceptable? Because we currently have a "Fedora Infrastructure Hotfixes"
link that points to:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/query?status=new&statu...
Either way, I do vaguely remember those hotfixes now that you mention
it.
I still think that keeping our fedoracommunity frontend AGPL is a good
thing. We did, however, recently change the core platform (Moksha), from
AGPL to Apache.
luke
12:14 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 18:22, Luke Macken <lmacken(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Wed Jul 06
19:34:46 -0400 2011:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 15:53, Luke Macken <lmacken(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Tue Jul 05 17:44:46 -0400
2011:
> >> No not http://fedoracommunity.org but
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ It has been in beta for 2
> >> years now. What do we need to do to finish it (maybe make it
> >> start.fedoraproject.org?) or put it aside for other things to do?
> >
> > This app was never really intended to ever be "finished". It was
meant
> > to be a platform for building widgets to visualize Fedora data. However,
> > I do think it's definitely still 'beta' quality, and the original
> > authors (J5, Mo, and I), have not had the cycles to continue to improve
> > it. We accomplished our initial goals, and then got pulled into
> > different directions (one of which was working on the core of the
> > platform, Moksha).
> >
> > Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and find it
> > to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not have any idea
> > as to how many people are using it. I think we should do some log
>
> Did the following quick statistics using awk:
>
> Currently we are seeing 380->420 unique ip addresses per month who are
> not bots or not referrals from other sites. Most go to /community/ but
> ~100 of them made queries beyond standard page data (images,
> javascript, and /community/). While it doesn't sound a lot.. for a
> site that doesn't have a lot of advertising it is an audience.
Wow, yeah, that's more of an audience than I expected. Thanks for
figuring that out.
Going for more numbers.. in June we are looking at about 40 visitors
per day but that is highly skewed because on Jun 10th we had 5x as
many visitors as normal. Removing that day brought it down
> > With regard to the claims that the AGPL makes this app
difficult to
> > maintain -- I honestly cannot recall a single case where we had to
> > hotfix it and jump through the AGPL hoops. If anything, this helped us
> > figure out what it takes to develop, deploy, and maintain both
> > TurboGears2 and AGPL applications.
>
> We did it twice right after it was deployed. We went one way in how we
> were going to do this and had to undo it the next day when Tom got
> clarification that pointing to tickets/patches was not acceptable. If
> we could move to Apache or just GPL I would be quite happy. My memory
> of it was that there was a bunch of stuff having to be done right
> then, but it is a memory and probably not a good one.
Are you sure we got clarification that pointing to tickets was *not*
acceptable? Because we currently have a "Fedora Infrastructure Hotfixes"
link that points to:
My laptop had a meltdown this evening and I had to recover what I was
doing.. but I had been running through emails and this is what our
rule is:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
The fact the page is still draft and there are few emails after August
2009 on this basically says we just dropped it like many other things.
I still think that keeping our fedoracommunity frontend AGPL is a
good
thing. We did, however, recently change the core platform (Moksha), from
AGPL to Apache.
Well the issue from a programming side point is nice with AGPL, but
compliance is more of a pain on the sysadmin side. Of course it has
been 3 years so maybe how things are meant to be complied with have
changed.
luke
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
8:01 a.m.
Bradley Kuhn has told me before that our interpretation of AGPL was somewhat
"tight". If we're going to re-consider, it's worth consulting with
him.
--
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist
Social Media and Community Professional
Dell | Office of the CTO
-----Original Message-----
From: infrastructure-bounces(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:infrastructure-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Stephen John Smoogen
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:15 AM
To: Luke Macken
Cc: Fedora Infrastructure; spot; duffy; websites
Subject: Re: Fedora Community
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 18:22, Luke Macken <lmacken(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Wed Jul 06
19:34:46 -0400 2011:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 15:53, Luke Macken <lmacken(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Tue Jul 05 17:44:46 -0400
2011:
> >> No not http://fedoracommunity.org but
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ It has been in beta for
> >> 2 years now. What do we need to do to finish it (maybe make it
> >> start.fedoraproject.org?) or put it aside for other things to do?
> >
> > This app was never really intended to ever be "finished". It was
> > meant to be a platform for building widgets to visualize Fedora
> > data. However, I do think it's definitely still 'beta' quality, and
> > the original authors (J5, Mo, and I), have not had the cycles to
> > continue to improve it. We accomplished our initial goals, and then
> > got pulled into different directions (one of which was working on
> > the core of the platform, Moksha).
> >
> > Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and
> > find it to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not
> > have any idea as to how many people are using it. I think we should
> > do some log
>
> Did the following quick statistics using awk:
>
> Currently we are seeing 380->420 unique ip addresses per month who
> are not bots or not referrals from other sites. Most go to
> /community/ but
> ~100 of them made queries beyond standard page data (images,
> javascript, and /community/). While it doesn't sound a lot.. for a
> site that doesn't have a lot of advertising it is an audience.
Wow, yeah, that's more of an audience than I expected. Thanks for
figuring that out.
Going for more numbers.. in June we are looking at about 40 visitors per day but that is
highly skewed because on Jun 10th we had 5x as many visitors as normal. Removing that day
brought it down
> > With regard to the claims that the AGPL makes this app
difficult to
> > maintain -- I honestly cannot recall a single case where we had to
> > hotfix it and jump through the AGPL hoops. If anything, this helped
> > us figure out what it takes to develop, deploy, and maintain both
> > TurboGears2 and AGPL applications.
>
> We did it twice right after it was deployed. We went one way in how
> we were going to do this and had to undo it the next day when Tom got
> clarification that pointing to tickets/patches was not acceptable. If
> we could move to Apache or just GPL I would be quite happy. My memory
> of it was that there was a bunch of stuff having to be done right
> then, but it is a memory and probably not a good one.
Are you sure we got clarification that pointing to tickets was *not*
acceptable? Because we currently have a "Fedora Infrastructure Hotfixes"
link that points to:
My laptop had a meltdown this evening and I had to recover what I was doing.. but I had
been running through emails and this is what our rule is:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
The fact the page is still draft and there are few emails after August
2009 on this basically says we just dropped it like many other things.
I still think that keeping our fedoracommunity frontend AGPL is a
good
thing. We did, however, recently change the core platform (Moksha),
from AGPL to Apache.
Well the issue from a programming side point is nice with AGPL, but compliance is more of
a pain on the sysadmin side. Of course it has been 3 years so maybe how things are meant
to be complied with have changed.
luke
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle." --
Ian MacLaren _______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
4676
days inactive
4678
days old
websites@lists.fedoraproject.org
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Christian Bryant -
John (J5) Palmieri -
Luke Macken -
Matt Domsch -
Máirín Duffy -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Toshio Kuratomi