On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 18:22, Luke Macken <lmacken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Wed Jul 06 19:34:46 -0400 2011: >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 15:53, Luke Macken <lmacken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of Tue Jul 05 17:44:46 -0400 2011: >> >> No not http://fedoracommunity.org but >> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ It has been in beta for 2 >> >> years now. What do we need to do to finish it (maybe make it >> >> start.fedoraproject.org?) or put it aside for other things to do? >> > >> > This app was never really intended to ever be "finished". It was meant >> > to be a platform for building widgets to visualize Fedora data. However, >> > I do think it's definitely still 'beta' quality, and the original >> > authors (J5, Mo, and I), have not had the cycles to continue to improve >> > it. We accomplished our initial goals, and then got pulled into >> > different directions (one of which was working on the core of the >> > platform, Moksha). >> > >> > Personally, I still use fedoracommunity on a regular basis, and find it >> > to be extremely useful in many ways. Right now we do not have any idea >> > as to how many people are using it. I think we should do some log >> >> Did the following quick statistics using awk: >> >> Currently we are seeing 380->420 unique ip addresses per month who are >> not bots or not referrals from other sites. Most go to /community/ but >> ~100 of them made queries beyond standard page data (images, >> javascript, and /community/). While it doesn't sound a lot.. for a >> site that doesn't have a lot of advertising it is an audience. > > Wow, yeah, that's more of an audience than I expected. Thanks for > figuring that out. Going for more numbers.. in June we are looking at about 40 visitors per day but that is highly skewed because on Jun 10th we had 5x as many visitors as normal. Removing that day brought it down >> > With regard to the claims that the AGPL makes this app difficult to >> > maintain -- I honestly cannot recall a single case where we had to >> > hotfix it and jump through the AGPL hoops. If anything, this helped us >> > figure out what it takes to develop, deploy, and maintain both >> > TurboGears2 and AGPL applications. >> >> We did it twice right after it was deployed. We went one way in how we >> were going to do this and had to undo it the next day when Tom got >> clarification that pointing to tickets/patches was not acceptable. If >> we could move to Apache or just GPL I would be quite happy. My memory >> of it was that there was a bunch of stuff having to be done right >> then, but it is a memory and probably not a good one. > > Are you sure we got clarification that pointing to tickets was *not* > acceptable? Because we currently have a "Fedora Infrastructure Hotfixes" > link that points to: My laptop had a meltdown this evening and I had to recover what I was doing.. but I had been running through emails and this is what our rule is: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing The fact the page is still draft and there are few emails after August 2009 on this basically says we just dropped it like many other things. > I still think that keeping our fedoracommunity frontend AGPL is a good > thing. We did, however, recently change the core platform (Moksha), from > AGPL to Apache. Well the issue from a programming side point is nice with AGPL, but compliance is more of a pain on the sysadmin side. Of course it has been 3 years so maybe how things are meant to be complied with have changed. > luke > -- Stephen J Smoogen. "The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance." Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle." -- Ian MacLaren _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
