<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Hi, I suggesto to critically speed this up, in the spirit of having a weekend with other things to do besides reading/writing this thread. so my proposal is RTFM, which could work..... lets see... It was Philip Van Hoof who said at the right time 24.07.2009 12:31 the following words: <blockquote cite="mid:1248431513.4556.10.camel@lors" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">have the feeling that there's a connection between the people who've been discussing things face to face at conference meetings, and what has been said in that discussion thread. Let's reconnect this ;) Hence the title of this E-mail: "Request for an overview": Articulate the decisions and conclusions, rather than keeping them buried in a mailing list thread. </pre> </blockquote> hey, this is asking to start another email thread which is going to be lost again in a month. (This is going to be a waste of our time and, for me, my weekend.) All important remarks (my selection) on the mailinglist have been gathered (by me) here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/oscaf/wiki/OntologyMaintenance">https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/oscaf/wiki/OntologyMaintenance</a> I have to admit, it sucks very hard, that no one else cares to document decisions, and I wonder why I do it if no one bothers reading it. I invested a lot of work to gather all the relevant information from the mailinglist. the current overview is on the wikipage, we must stop referring to individual emails, which again are going to be lost within a week and are always a personal view, but refer to the wiki, which is going to be our reference and consensus at the end. I really think that we should first  RTFM, now we all know where the manual is, lets discuss the manual <blockquote cite="mid:1248431513.4556.10.camel@lors" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> Yes, and this is part of the problem that I wanted to address: I don't <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">If this is what everyone wants then - i can enable the git repo - and import the current trunk - and disable svn </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I think that's a good idea. </pre> </blockquote> I know that GIT does not provide any new features we desperately need NOW, but instead breaks compability with TRAC where we just invested a month work to move the tickets there. in my not so humble opinion, thats a waste of time invested. <blockquote cite="mid:1248431513.4556.10.camel@lors" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">- and ask everyone here to campaign for the git integration to be enabled (vote and tell others to vote on ideatorrent) </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I'm still not sure what the other people think about using trac. I know it has been quite unpopular whenever we brought this up at conference meetings. But maybe it's suddenly fine? Let's wait a bit and allow others to formulate their opinion. </pre> </blockquote> sounds like a good idea, ..... hang on..... on the other hand opinions are not facts. and opinions, if not facts, are totally irrelevant when you can look at facts that are objective and relevant for being productive in this community now. * Trac has a good bugtracker that is easy to use, * integrated with a documentation wiki, * with SVN and a timeline and changesets, * and all of us can learn to use it or have used it before so, I say, 4+ for trac. (please negate each point) I could need arguments and facts like: * I can'T use SVN because..... * with SVN we can't have X which is important for process Y at stage Z when devleoiping ontology A.... (etc...) so, please don't say opinions, say facts about GIT and which GIT feature we need NOW that we don't have in SVN and that is crucial for the success of our work. note-  we worked with TRAC/SVN now for three years developing the ontologies, and up to today, TRAC was not our main productivity problem. Discussion, consequence in documentation, and people's time was. We published the ontologies, in several versions, they are in production, live is good. so I would like to learn what we missed by not having GIT. ok, enough of my opinions. ..... 8-] best Leo <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- _____________________________________________________ Dr. Leo Sauermann <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann">http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann</a> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH Trippstadter Strasse 122 P.O. Box 2080 Fon: +43 6991 gnowsis D-67663 Kaiserslautern Fax: +49 631 20575-102 Germany Mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de">leo.sauermann@dfki.de</a> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 _____________________________________________________ </pre> </body> </html>