In-Reply-To: <200402260912.54001.josh@agliodbs.com>
References: <200402260912.54001.josh@agliodbs.com>
Message-Id: <3E5D2AC9-689F-11D8-9C64-000A95CEC686@dotgeek.org>
Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
From: David Costa <geeks@dotgeek.org>
Subject: Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:03:36 +0100
To: josh@agliodbs.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Feb 26, 2004, at 6:12 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Why do we want to replace GBorg?
>
> GBorg was pretty good collab tool technology for 2000.
> Heck, it's still not a bad tool. Unfortunately, since the
> demise of Great Bridge, it's had only one maintainer (for
> whose efforts we are very grateful), meaning
> that little or no progressive development has taken place.
> For example, GBorg still lacks both project and bug search
> features, and based on our community is unlikely to develop
> these things.
>

+1 for me. I think the bug tracking is a must.  I have some experience 
with bugs on php.net
(http://bugs.php.net/) and the excellent platform makes the volunteers 
work much easier.

>
> Why GForge?
>
> GForge runs on PostgreSQL and their team are enthusiastic PG
> users.  Most other collab tools run on other databases and would
>

Again +1, they run PostgreSQL their project is made for postgresql (and 
this is rare in the PHP world) it makes sense to me.
>
>
>
> But I don't want to migrate my project!
>
> See above.  You'd have at least a year to procrastinate about it,
> and may be able to get someone else to do most of the
> migration work for you.
>
I would be glad to help, gforge is a PHP based project so I could try 
something out. I don't think that
we (or better said gborg developers) should be scared about the move. 
It is always a pain to migrate but, if it is worth the effort (and in 
this case
we could all benefit from a more structured system) we have to do it.

The suggestion is to move slowly, so, worth a shoot.

Cheers
David Costa