[Nepomuk] Re: Development status tracking

[Artem Serebriyskiy]

And, by the way, why techbase.kde.org ? Why not community.kde.org ?
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects states that info for external users should
go to techbase, for internal - to community.kde.org.
Not that I am against techbase - I just want raise and solve this question
before I start filling my pages. Not a big fan of moving pages from one wiki
to another :)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Artem Serebriyskiy
<v.for.vandal at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Vishesh Handa <handa.vish at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hey Everyone
>>
>> I think tracking development is a great idea, and using a wiki is a lot
>> better than bugzilla. But, still, a wiki? Editing a wiki is a somewhat
>> laborious task. Plus, it doesn't even look that good. Then again, that will
>> hopefully be improved. Does anyone know of any better tools to track
>> development? I'm hoping for something that is a bit more machine readable.
>>
> I don't [know], but may be there is a way to add such a page to
> projects.kde.org instead of wiki? It already tracks commits, project
> descriptions and so on. May be it can provide us with some 'metaproject'
> page for Nepomuk where we can propogate statuses from usual nepomuk projects
> pages?
>
> But, again, I have no idea what can Redmine do and what can't. So this weak
> idea needs more exploration.
>
>>
>> Anyway, lets go on with the wiki page for now. It's better than nothing.
>>
>> I'll add what all I'm working on over there.
>> Maybe even clean up the pages.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Sebastian Trüg <trueg at kde.org> wrote:
>>
>>> maybe splitting into core and apps would be nice, too? "Core" being the
>>> backend stuff like storage/DMS, file indexer, query service and the
>>> libraries, "apps" the rest
>>>
>>
>> Yes. That's a great idea.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 07/03/2011 11:51 AM, Paweł Paprota wrote:
>>> > Hey,
>>> >
>>> > On 07/03/2011 11:41 AM, Artem Serebriyskiy wrote:
>>> >> And what are the policies/guidlines of adding a project to this page ?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Good question - this should be stated on the page. IMHO every
>>> > development activity (at the high level) should be reflected in the
>>> status.
>>> >
>>> > If there will be too many entries, it can be split into categories
>>> > (GSOC, refactoring, bugfixing etc.) but I think the more information
>>> the
>>> > better.
>>> >
>>> >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Paweł Paprota<ppawel at fastmail.fm>
>>>  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hey,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 07/03/2011 10:58 AM, Sebastian Trüg wrote:
>>> >>>> Just a quick "yes, please" from me. I think this is a very good idea
>>> and
>>> >>>> I would gladly track my tasks on such a page, link other information
>>> to
>>> >>>> it and blog about it.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Good to hear!
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Would you take the task of finishing this page? Maybe add a big fat
>>> >>>> Nepomuk logo on top? ;)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sure. The problem is that I don't actually know what tasks are being
>>> >>> worked on currently! This was in fact the main reason for starting
>>> the
>>> >>> tracking page.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Moreover, the core of this idea is that the tracking will be done
>>> >>> collectively so nothing's stopping anyone from updating the status.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I still have a few ideas on how to improve the shape and form of the
>>> >>> page itself but obviously further suggestions are welcome.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So basically to answer your question once again - yes and what else
>>> >>> would you like to see there?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Paweł
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Cheers
>>> >>>> Sebastian
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 07/03/2011 09:34 AM, Paweł Paprota wrote:
>>> >>>>> Hello,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> as I'm about to start another development task in the Nepomuk
>>> project,
>>> >>>>> an idea came to my mind. I already said random things on IRC about
>>> using
>>> >>>>> Bugzilla for tracking development but I've decided to give this
>>> idea a
>>> >>>>> proper shape.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> So here is the first iteration:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Nepomuk/DevelopmentStatus
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> There is enough introductory information on the page that I think
>>> >>>>> there's no need to duplicate the explanation of the idea in this
>>> e-mail.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Let me know what you think and if it would be feasible to try to
>>> >>>>> maintain this page and see how it works (or doesn't work).
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> Nepomuk mailing list
>>> >>>> Nepomuk at kde.org
>>> >>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> Nepomuk mailing list
>>> >>> Nepomuk at kde.org
>>> >>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Nepomuk mailing list
>>> >> Nepomuk at kde.org
>>> >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Nepomuk mailing list
>>> > Nepomuk at kde.org
>>> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nepomuk mailing list
>>> Nepomuk at kde.org
>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vishesh Handa
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nepomuk mailing list
>> Nepomuk at kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Artem Serebriyskiy
>



-- 
Sincerely yours,
Artem Serebriyskiy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/nepomuk/attachments/20110704/172c2517/attachment.htm