[Xesam] Request for an overview - RTFM the overview first?

[Leo Sauermann]

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:
> 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.
>   
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:
https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/oscaf/wiki/OntologyMaintenance

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


>   
> Yes, and this is part of the problem that I wanted to address: I don't
>> If this is what everyone wants then
>> - i can enable the git repo
>> - and import the current trunk
>> - and disable svn
>>     
>
> I think that's a good idea. 
>   
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.


>   
>> - and ask everyone here to campaign for the git integration to be
>> enabled (vote and tell others to vote on ideatorrent)
>>     
>
> 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.
>   
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




-- 
_____________________________________________________
Dr. Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

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:  leo.sauermann at dfki.de

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
_____________________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xesam/attachments/20090725/b205239e/attachment.htm