I guess this is largely a question for our development team, but everyone else is likely to have an opinion. SImple question:
**Isn't it time to"bite the bullet" and abandon this SourceForge mess?**
There ARE alternatives, perhaps most notably Google Code (http://code.google.com)
If nothing else, surely we can at least abandon this forum nonsense, and host our own somewhere?
I know its not an easy decision, but read our own posts on these forums - they contain nearly as much traffic about how bad things are as they do assisting users!!!
Second the motion!
Even punbb included with pgv seems better than the "new and improved" here.
Are you talking about moving the forum, project hosting or both?
The 'actives' in PGV are a very small group - maybe a dozen in all. There are many more who visit. SF takes a load off the actives, lets them get on with PGV. For the smallish inconveniences that SF imposes on us, I'd vote to keep the actives active!
Paul, I'm referring to either, both, neither, or whatever combination works. In other words, I'm not making a recommendation, just trying to get some discussion going. I'd rather see a decision to stay than just filling these forums with complaints, I also think that complaining at, about, or to SF is probably a waste of time. If its not working for us, WE should fix it, whatever we deem **IT** to be.
I'm sure there are alternatives that can provide ALL the support SF does, without taking developers away from developing, which I certainly agree is essential.
Yep, the support is the key ingredient in my view.
Lets list our main complaints:
1 Speed (or lack thereof)
2. Stuff out of sequence (dunno why, but some of it is)
4. Readability (at 69, I get tired eyes…)
5. A recent innovation - a lousy editor
On the plus side:
1. They do all the work
Paul (with tongue in cheek at the readability of this!)
Not sure what you mean by "They do all the work"? I don't see them doing anything other than playing with a defective UI.
They provide a structure (as do plenty of others), but using it is up to the project members.
Its unbelievable to me that SF has come this far and has been 'THE" place to host O/S SW and how quickly they are coming apart at the seams. We can't be the only group with these frustrations.
BTW, the new forum sw sucks visually, on their system, but all the nuances (underscores, quotes, parens, etc) seem to translate just fine to my text-formatted software. So strange.
New servers and new SW and these forums have slowed to a crawl. Someone at SF has pulled the wool over the eyes of the 'bosses', but again, I can't believe that they are not being deluged in complaints, with tons of projects looking to pull the plug and move on to some other option. Absolutely shocking they have seemed to be oblivious to the rising tide of discontent.
I'll follow wherever you leaders take us, or suffer here while we scream at the SF elite to get it fixed (and fast).
Most users won't notice the SVN performance, but I've just submitted 5 lines of code in two files, and it took 12 minutes for SF to accept the change.
This is beyond a joke.
This site has always been difficult for me to understand and navigate. I didn't care for the old board here and the new one has only slowed things down.
I'd personally appreciate moving to a new board because it would create the opportunity to restructure things. For example, we could set up hierarchies of issues, like 'Installation Problems' or 'Modules - Googlemaps' and so on. The differentiation between 'help' and 'open discussion' here has never really mattered to me, as I read the messages in both forums periodically and learn equally from both. So I'm in favor of a move because of the possibilities it creates for us in structuring the board specifically around the nature of PGV.
Can we do what we do here, for free somewhere else, like the code.google.com thing kiwi mentioned?
fisharebest's point is interesting - it means that even Paul's point about "SF takes a load off the actives, lets them get on with PGV." isn't a relevant argument for staying here.
I've had a look around, and do think that google offers the best alternative, and reading their FAQ's, support responses etc, they seem to have the right attitude. For me, these points stand out, but there may be important factors I'm missing:
1 - Free
2 - Open Source
3 - Support for SVN (1GB code storage, plus 2GB download storage)
4 - Issues tracker
5 - WIKI included (so we could stop having a separate site for it)
6 - Forum support through as many "Google Groups" as we want to set up OR by linking to any other hosted forum site.
The negatives will be :
Moving will be a major task, perhaps?
Re-educating users about the move
-gotta do it this way because of underbars!
No idea of accuracy.
<<1 - Free>>
Free is one option. While I was waiting for SF's SVN server to respond, I was googling config options for a PowerEdge R410 and CoLo costs at my local data-centre. :-)
I was thinking maybe persuade a couple of dozen PGV users to club together. We'd have a kick-ass server with enough spare grunt to host SVN, Forums, wiki, etc….. Just leave downloads on SF. Bandwidth costs money, and the reason SF does downloads so well is that they delegate it to mirrors.
All of the free alternatives are going to have similar issues to sourceforge. I have another project at code.google.com and I had to wait 6 months for them to fix it so that I could upload a new file for a new release. I recently visited a project on codehaus and they looked like they had a pretty complete offering.
Soureceforge is recognizing that they can't do it all and so they are starting to deprecate many of their features in deference to their hosted apps options. See
We can already have a phpBB forum through SF if you want. An admin just has to set it up. What we won't have yet is the ability to migrate all of the existing data. There is tons of community knowledge stored in these forums that I would hate to lose completely. Maybe we could start up a phpBB forum and categorize it etc and then migrate the old forums to a "old forums" category once the migration step is ready.
MediaWiki is also available so if we wanted to migrate from our existing MediaWiki server that is donated by a community user back to sourceforge then we could offload some of that maintenance as well.
I don't like the option of hosting our own because there will be no guarantees for longevity, uptime, backups, etc. What happens when whoever is managing it has to leave the project for a while?
I don't know if its the 1st of April, but I just plugged in the new URLs (as prompted to do) and suddenly things are flying! Maybe they heard us?
Paul, What new URLs, and prompted by who????? The URL you quoted is the one I've always used, and I can't say I'm noticing much change.
John, those sound like good suggestions to me. Its a shame SF didn't tell us (in a way we would have read / understood) about these possibilities. It looks like they've kept that info limited to project members (developers) only. I tried clicking on one of the surveys from the link you gave, and it said I wasn't allowed access to that part of the system.
So, I vote for:
a) moving immediately to a punBB forum, transferring this old data when we can. I wouldn't actually worry too much about that though. Searching here has got so hard that few users ever do it with much success as far as I can tell. This will help most users, as for many these forums are all they see of SF (plus occasionally the download page).
One question, if we link to punBB here, does that mean users get to continue with their existing SF login details for it?
b) transfer the WIKI pages as well, with grateful thanks to larry (if he's still the one hosting it) for what we have had so far. Incidentally, I have no objection to bringing pgvthemes.com into the mix too, if thats possible.
Unfortunately these things don't help Greg's issue with slow SVN support - but perhaps Paul's comment suggests they are bringing more power online?
Greg - I can see where you are coming from, and I would be one user willing to support the cost of that, But John does have a point, regarding the long-term viability of such an option. What is the view of other developers?
A few days ago, I started getting a pink stripe across the top of forum pages advising me to use the new URLs, and that I would now be redirected…
The increased speed happens after you connect to the first page of any forum. After that, any page, any forum flies along.
It looks like forums are to be deprecated, so maybe we wait and see what else SF have up their sleeve(s). It might be opportune to contact Lawrie Lewis re the possiblity of taking over his wiki.
Something seems to be in the mill at SF right now. Maybe this gets postponed for a few days unil things become clearer. And I note that I can find very few other complaints about SF, but then I may not be looking in the right place. :-(
I'd personally recommend NNTP. There are a lot of nice forum packages, but to me, their only advantage over the old-fashioned Usenet is cosmetic.
I'm not having any problem with fetching code or entering bug reports.
I do think that the trackes have the same asinine backwards ordering issue as the forum.
Wes "I'd personally recommend NNTP" means you are recommending a total move away from SF, as they don't offer NNTP here, only punBB (see John's link above). In fact the only one on the list that Paul quoted above ( http://tinyurl.com/6tzup4 ) that does offer it is GNU Savannah.
Paul, I think most of us have been using these "new" urls for weeks, if not months. There is certainly no speed change for today. I see no reason to delay a decision ("Procrastination is opportunity's assassin." ~Victor Kiam)
There's a considerable speed change here today.
I've been living with the 'new' forums for a little while. Any better - don't know - I'm not one for change when it's not needed and I don't think this particular change WAS needed. ( Yet another new 'syntax' to learn :( )
The debate on where to be 'hosted' has happened in a LOT of projects, with mixed feelings, but the ONE single thing that I would say is that ANY replacement for a list like this MUST support email based interface as well as web. And I don't mean the farce of sending an email that there is a new message - but not actually including it. And SF is a bearable alternative since it does include the message, but personally I'd prefer to reply OFFLINE rather than having to be online and using this crappy interface ;)
Yahoo groups have 'lists' just right, but I would not recommend a switch TO them at this stage. But projects that have switched FROM them to lists without an email interface have suffered a loss of contributors. ALL these 'free' facilities suffer from bouts of slow access, and you can usually pin them down to some 'start of day' somewhere in the world.
For my own customers we still use Yahoo and will until there is a reliable alternative which does web and email transparently. THAT is something I am now approaching with the bitweaver framework, and I am more than happy to host PGV on that which will be located on a machine at one&one which has a very high speed connection and unlimited bandwidth. But then you do have the problem of what happens if I have the plug pulled on me later.
We could return to the 'SVN' debate, and the number of people now advocating that even 'SVN' is wrong and we should use something else, but at the end of the day is the hassle of changing worth the gain? "Better the devil you know" - How much space is PGV taking up in SVN and how quickly will a 1Gb cap be hit if one moves to Google - which has it's own pigging annoying interfaces much the same as SF!
Don't know if this of any help to you but found this article Setting Up A Secure Subversion Source Code Repository
According to the author he has access to a virtual server costing 13 EUR / month for 15GB harddisk partition. He also gives instruction on how he set it up. Cost I suppose is an issue but I for one wouldn't mind putting in a contribution towards it if it gave you what you wanted. Would that not be enough space to put all the Wiki and forum on there as well.
From a users point of view I don't see why any of the forum software freely available wouldn't put SF to shame. I like the look of vBulletin myself but it's not freeware. Running your own forum would give you a lot more control, freedom, options (your own categories) and offer choices to users (like being able to upload images) which are absent in SF.
As one person mentioned finding stuff is really hard and you must get really frustrated with users asking you the same questions all the time when a well organised forum will make so much easier to classify information and for users to discover it with little pain and frustration.
> Wes "I'd personally recommend NNTP"
> means you are recommending a total
> move away from SF
Not a total move. Create a alt.phpgedview (or create the three subgroups of that. Downside would be the trolls, spammers, and flamers that would appear, but killfiles handle that fairly well. Upside: (1) a wide choice of readers let's the user somewhat determine the format, instead of the server's code; (2) in most of those readers, one can actually figure out who answered what.
Everything else could stay on SF - or not. Personally, I have no issues with SVN (but I'm not a developer) and my only real complaint about the tracker is the out-of-sequence text. Though I wouldn't complain about a better tracker-and there must be a lot of them that are better.
If I had more time to play admin, I'd offer to host it.
Other than being unable to get a Sourceforge signon, I haven't been aware of the issues here. I am sure there are many of us (like myself) that have servers with lots of wasted bandwidth and disk space.
I don't know how much value there is to having an email interface. I didn't notice you could respond to posts here in email? Maybe I am missing something? Seems to me that a Wordpress blog would be adequate for the developer and the user side of the issue. That connected to a web page for downloads seems all that is needed, but then not being a developer and not knowing what SF offers, it is difficult to ascertain what the "special" needs are for a project like this?
How much bandwidth and disk space does something like this need? I have a couple thousand GB of bandwidth and 300GB disk unused.
Maybe there is something I am missing here that a service like SF offers?
Kiwi-pgv just mentioned this thread to me as I have had other things going on at this time and not on top of what is occuring with PGV.
If the community wants to move the wiki to SF - no problems here. Just to let you know that we actually have 4 sets of data for each of languages used. I am not sure how SF has mediawiki set up but perhaps you might need to look at it to see how configurable it is. Can you add specific modules to it or is it simply a basic setup. We have added a few addons to stop spam etc.
The existing data can be transferred over - just time and bandwidth issues to get it to wherever it is needed.
My only comment with all of these comments is maintenance. Not only of the software (I am assuming that SF updates the software for mediawiki and phpBB - but if they don't who does) but of the content. With a BB you will need moderators/administrators. The same goes with the wiki and any other sites you put up.
I am looking after the wiki because I put my hand up to start it - if someone wants to move it to SF and take it over it will give me a bit more time so as I said at the start - no problems. The non english wiki sites really need to have administrators from those languages.
My two cents worth.
Did I miss something here? I thought the suggestion was to go the other way around, taking things off of SF and using an alternative platform?
Log in to post a comment.