New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Move repo to general namespace #50

Open
axilleas opened this Issue Apr 22, 2014 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@axilleas

axilleas commented Apr 22, 2014

Hello there!

I'd like to make a suggestion. Like the fedora-infra guys have their own namespace where the projects are hosted, what would you think if we followed a similar approach?

I have taken both fedora-ruby and fedoraruby namespaces if we agree on that :)

@zuhao

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zuhao

zuhao Apr 22, 2014

Owner

Sure thing.

Congrats on being selected for this year's GSoC. 👍

Owner

zuhao commented Apr 22, 2014

Sure thing.

Congrats on being selected for this year's GSoC. 👍

@axilleas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@axilleas

axilleas Apr 22, 2014

Thanks! I just thought if it would be better to move this repo there so that we can hold on the issues.

axilleas commented Apr 22, 2014

Thanks! I just thought if it would be better to move this repo there so that we can hold on the issues.

@axilleas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@axilleas

axilleas May 19, 2014

@movitto @voxik @nicolassatragno what do you think?

axilleas commented May 19, 2014

@movitto @voxik @nicolassatragno what do you think?

@movitto

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@movitto

movitto May 20, 2014

Collaborator

+1 I'm down, just a couple things.

The current authors / contributors / commiters should retain all their rights. The idea being this is a community project and people should be able to pickup bits that interest them (obviously taking care not too step on each other's toes)

The current repo is wired up to openshift & jenkins, I'm not against breaking this feature myself atm though @nicolassatragno implemented it so he will have a large say. Nico do you have time to assist w/ the wiring up of the new repo to openshift? No worries either way but this would at least provide an interim solution & continued support for your gci work.

If all this sounds good, it might be a good idea to announce the change on the ruby-sig mailing list and update the link on the ruby-sig page on the fedora wiki.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ruby_SIG

Just my 2 cents.
-Mo

Collaborator

movitto commented May 20, 2014

+1 I'm down, just a couple things.

The current authors / contributors / commiters should retain all their rights. The idea being this is a community project and people should be able to pickup bits that interest them (obviously taking care not too step on each other's toes)

The current repo is wired up to openshift & jenkins, I'm not against breaking this feature myself atm though @nicolassatragno implemented it so he will have a large say. Nico do you have time to assist w/ the wiring up of the new repo to openshift? No worries either way but this would at least provide an interim solution & continued support for your gci work.

If all this sounds good, it might be a good idea to announce the change on the ruby-sig mailing list and update the link on the ruby-sig page on the fedora wiki.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ruby_SIG

Just my 2 cents.
-Mo

@axilleas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@axilleas

axilleas May 20, 2014

The current authors / contributors / commiters should retain all their rights. The idea being this is a community project and people should be able to pickup bits that interest them (obviously taking care not too step on each other's toes)

Of course, that goes without saying!

The current repo is wired up to openshift & jenkins, I'm not against breaking this feature myself atm though @nicolassatragno implemented it so he will have a large say. Nico do you have time to assist w/ the wiring up of the new repo to openshift? No worries either way but this would at least provide an interim solution & continued support for your gci work.

I don't know what process is followed, but it should be fairly easy to change the repo.But as you said, that's @nicolassatragno to decide.
You mean the infra jenkins? I couldn't find it in there.

If all this sounds good, it might be a good idea to announce the change on the ruby-sig mailing list and update the link on the ruby-sig page on the fedora wiki.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ruby_SIG

Yeap, I can do that if and when we're all set up.

axilleas commented May 20, 2014

The current authors / contributors / commiters should retain all their rights. The idea being this is a community project and people should be able to pickup bits that interest them (obviously taking care not too step on each other's toes)

Of course, that goes without saying!

The current repo is wired up to openshift & jenkins, I'm not against breaking this feature myself atm though @nicolassatragno implemented it so he will have a large say. Nico do you have time to assist w/ the wiring up of the new repo to openshift? No worries either way but this would at least provide an interim solution & continued support for your gci work.

I don't know what process is followed, but it should be fairly easy to change the repo.But as you said, that's @nicolassatragno to decide.
You mean the infra jenkins? I couldn't find it in there.

If all this sounds good, it might be a good idea to announce the change on the ruby-sig mailing list and update the link on the ruby-sig page on the fedora wiki.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ruby_SIG

Yeap, I can do that if and when we're all set up.

@voxik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@voxik

voxik May 21, 2014

I am not sure this is worth of the effort.

At least, we should know what is our goal with regards of hosting. If the aim is to host IIFR on Fedora's infrastructure, then it might make sense to move the project under existing fedora-infra namespace.

On the other hand, it is true that there are several other Ruby-SIG projects, such as gem2rpm and rubypick, which could share common namespace.

If we'd like to go this direction, there should be probably broader discussion, what should be the namespace name.

voxik commented May 21, 2014

I am not sure this is worth of the effort.

At least, we should know what is our goal with regards of hosting. If the aim is to host IIFR on Fedora's infrastructure, then it might make sense to move the project under existing fedora-infra namespace.

On the other hand, it is true that there are several other Ruby-SIG projects, such as gem2rpm and rubypick, which could share common namespace.

If we'd like to go this direction, there should be probably broader discussion, what should be the namespace name.

@axilleas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@axilleas

axilleas May 21, 2014

On the other hand, it is true that there are several other Ruby-SIG projects, such as gem2rpm and rubypick, which could share common namespace.
If we'd like to go this direction, there should be probably broader discussion, what should be the namespace name.

I thought about that too but didn't bring it up. Maybe it would be best to fire up a discussion in ruby-sig.

axilleas commented May 21, 2014

On the other hand, it is true that there are several other Ruby-SIG projects, such as gem2rpm and rubypick, which could share common namespace.
If we'd like to go this direction, there should be probably broader discussion, what should be the namespace name.

I thought about that too but didn't bring it up. Maybe it would be best to fire up a discussion in ruby-sig.

@strzibny

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@strzibny

strzibny Jul 24, 2014

On the other hand, it is true that there are several other Ruby-SIG projects, such as gem2rpm and rubypick, which could share common namespace.

I would welcome a common namespace for all those projects. It would be much clearer for new contributors to catch up on the work we all do.

strzibny commented Jul 24, 2014

On the other hand, it is true that there are several other Ruby-SIG projects, such as gem2rpm and rubypick, which could share common namespace.

I would welcome a common namespace for all those projects. It would be much clearer for new contributors to catch up on the work we all do.

@axilleas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@axilleas

axilleas Aug 21, 2014

Took initiative and moved my fork of isitfedoraruby into fedora-ruby namespace. All contributors, commit log, etc are retained. Current owners are https://github.com/orgs/fedora-ruby/teams

axilleas commented Aug 21, 2014

Took initiative and moved my fork of isitfedoraruby into fedora-ruby namespace. All contributors, commit log, etc are retained. Current owners are https://github.com/orgs/fedora-ruby/teams

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment