Re: [Phpwebsite-developers] Easing into 1.x

[Greg M. <drk...@co...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthew McNaney wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> We are easing into the use of 1.x (aka Fallout) here at the university. 
> 
> As the software becomes more robust, I am curious to how you guys and
> gals would like to see the software released. Here is how I see it:
> 
> - 1.x is released as a stand-alone product without backward
>   compatibility  or branches

By backward compatibility do you mean a conversion script?
> 
> - As software stabilizes, we begin testing with old modules.

Are you expecting most of the modules to break?

> 
> - Once old modules begin working, the branching capabilities are
>   written.
> 
> - Final release announced to the general public containing all the
>   above.

I love transitional releases because you get the code out in user's
hands and they start dreaming and seeing what can be done using the new
code.

> 
> Does that meet with your approval?
> 
> My next question is when, where, and how should open bug and feature
> requests? How should we handle documentation and at what point? Should
> we open new forums in Sourceforge or have forums elsewhere until the
> software is "legit"?

I'd pick one place and stay with it.  I do phpWebSite support as a
hobby.  The problem I see is that phpWebSite lends itself to everyone
putting up their own support sign and trying to make a name for
themselves.  That's great because in the early 9x release is seemed like
there weren't many options available.  However, there is a balkanizing
effect on the community.  I'd use the SF forums or put up the phpBB at
SF.  However, the project won't get SF brownie points with phpBB but the
dog food will taste oh so good.  Get the users used to coming to one
place for support.  There's nothing wrong with putting up an Alpha
forum.  That will scare away many users.  I also checked that both the
forum name and description are modifiable for forums.  So you can start
off with alpha 1.x.x forums and rename them later to 1.x.x. You can have
private forums but I am not sure how the work on SF.  Your concerns are
justified about the software being "legit" but you may rob the community
of participating in the process or the excitement building up to the
final release.  Perhaps, bug days can be created like I have seen on
other projects, etc.  T-shirts can be won.  The most bug reports triaged
earn prizes, etc.

> 
> Since this is a rebirth of code we have the opportunity to change how we
> are handling things as well. Some issues:
>

These questions are entirely in the hands of the guy that looks in the
mirror that wrote them.  I think the school had a wonderful idea when
they released phpWebSite under the GPL.  The school benefited.  The rest
of the world benefited.  The benevolent dictatorship has worked well but
has slowed down the development process.  Again looking at this from a
hobbiest perspective, I don't understand why -comm had to exist at all!?
 I think all of -comm should be closed and moved to phpWebSite's
project.  Why can't the i18n, modules, and themes, the documentation
wiki run under phpWebSite's SF project?  These would be subprojects
under phpWebsite.  If you run this under -comm, then why would anyone
want to go to phpWebSite-comm, when site x is just as good?  Having
these features under phpWebSite makes sense to me but it would appear
that more people would have to be added to the phpWebSite SF project.
There are controls in place to allow that level of participation.  The
proposal of leaving -comm or another location would continue the
divisions in the community and make the phpWebSite community less
effective than other communities such as drupal, etc.  I think the
examples of what Redhat did with Fedora and how the rest of the world
responded with Open Suse, Open Solaris, etc shows how powerful growing
the main phpWebSite community can be.

I think one of the most illuminating quotes was this one on Distrowatch
"...What its competitors can do right now is to learn from Ubuntu's
success and incorporate some of the project's ideas into their own work.
Building solid support infrastructure (user forums, mailing lists,
Wikis, translation framework) with active participation of the
distribution's developers absolutely essential for any project that
intends to grow. Having a fixed release schedule and clearly stated
support period (without changing them every few months) is equally
important. It is amazing how many distributions neglect these two basic
characteristics, then wonder why users start looking elsewhere!
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20050404

> - How we handle i18n translation submissions (-comm cvs?)
> - Decide upon a standard set of CSS rules
> - Consolidate documentation in the -comm Wiki
> 
> These are some things to ponder and I am interested in your viewpoints.
> I know Fallout has been in development for a loooooong time and I
> appreciate everyone patiently (and not so patiently) awaiting its
> release. I'd like this release to go smoothly.
> 
> Thanks,
> Matt
> 
> 

I am more concerned that the efforts of the community are diluted.
Moving the work all under the phpWebSite project would hopefully focus
the community.  I'd say you have a chance to fix that with the 1.x.x
release.

Greg


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRhsdxyxe5L6mr7IRAisYAJwJldHL3T02T1UEsSaiAcxiOG45FQCfdo5g
t1z2BT0/dK75i+uAK1g2AEk=
=ZKHR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----