[Xesam] Request for an overview

[Philip Van Hoof]

We had a conference where we discussed several things. I was just
checking the current status. We was me, Jürg, Sebastian Trüg, Rob
Taylor, Ivan Frade (if I missed somebody, let me know. Not sure if Jos
Vandenoever also discussed ontology with us).

What I noticed so far:

- Apparently has a project called OSCAF been setup on sourceforce.

  http://sourceforge.net/projects/oscaf/

- Although I had the impression that at the conference most people where
  reluctant to opt for trac, trac is nevertheless being installed as the
  ticket system.

  I don't know how 'okay' this is for all people. My impression at least
  was that this isn't ok.

- I also had the impression that most people would prefer git,
  nonetheless is SVN being installed as repository. This is probably not
  a very big issue, just pointing out.

- Sebastian has starting implementing the layout changes that we
  discussed at the conference. This is nice, thanks!


Important items that we need:

o. Formal decisions on branch management. Apparently is Evgeny's opinion
   (discussion on IRC) that trunk should be stable, and that development
   happens in branches. Sebastian Trüg's (and my opinion, too) appears
   to be that trunk is development and we'll have stable version
   branches.

   I conclude that there's no conclusion on this, and that we should
   soon make a decision. This will of course matter for the projects
   depending on the shared ontology project.

o. A decision on the bugtracking system (this is urgent)

o. A product in that bugtracking system

o. A component for each ontology on that product

  o. Each component will have a default assignee
  o. Some of the developers will be put in CC for all ontologies
  o. Patches containing Tracker's initial ontology-change requests. We
     have quite a few change requests already, indeed.

o. Structural decisions on who will maintain what

o. The layout changes (but Sebastian already started this, awesome!)

  o. Build environment ( remember autotools being mentioned)
  o. The TriG files and the directory layout for them
  o. A file describing the dependency tree of the ontologies
  o. Documentation about custom ontology install procedure
  o. Tools for generating documentation (part of the build environment)

I noticed some confusion on who is doing what, how what is being done
and where it is being done. Therefor I think it would be useful if
people would (more clearly) point such things out on this mailing list,
and use it more often to articulate decisions made at conference
meetings (as these days they are happening, at a high frequency).


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be