Mongrel wiki?

Server Mongrel
21

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:25:44 -0500
“Evan W.” [email protected] wrote:

I don’t think we’re hurting for hosting; I think Zed is concerned
about the host being controlled by only one person ultimately.

Although, my opinion is, whoever controls Rubyforge controls the gems,
so Rubyforge will always be the home of “real” mongrel. But it would
be nice to leave the SVN in place.

Yes, it’s not about the cost of hosting at all. Since I wrote Mongrel I
can pretty much ask for hosting and people will donate it. The
“whoever” that controls rubyforge are people from rubycentral who have a
huge stake in not being evil(ish) and I know most of them and trust
them. Nobody really knows the dude at devjavu.

For example, let’s say ruby central eats it and rubyforge bites the
dust. I can call David Black, Rich Kilmer, and others directly and beg
them to get me a dump of everything that was there. Rich and crew
probably would warn everyone things were going to get bad and ask for
help or offer to give people their projects. They’d probably get money
and donations from everyone who benefits from the service. Rubyforge
also has a vested interest in remaining neutral in any debates or
disputes about project ownership.

Now, let’s take devjavu. I’ve never met the guy who runs it, don’t know
much about him, and he charges money for the service. If his business
implodes then he actually could consider the code sitting on his
computers an asset. I don’t know how he runs his systems, where they’re
hosted, what he does with them, how secure he is, or even if he’s a
legit business. I’m sure he’s not an evil guy, but he’s not on the same
trust level as rubyforge by a long stretch. I also don’t know if he’d
remain neutral in any project ownership disputes.

Another example was lighthouse. I trust Rick like crazy, but I don’t
trust whether Rick’s business will be around in 1 year. If I hosted the
Mongrel bug list there, I’m sure I could get the data back from Rick,
but how would I resurrect the bug tracker? I wouldn’t have the source
code as that’s an asset. I wouldn’t have the expertise or time to set
it up. If Rick’s business went down then we’d lose a huge service.

Additionally, rubyforge is a community effort. Rather than move mongrel
hosting off, why not talk with the maintainers and offer to pitch in
some work to get the services you want setup and running smooth. I’m
sure they’d appreciate it and if not you can just setup the one wiki you
want on another machine.

–
Zed A. Shaw

22

I can probably arrange for hosting for any open source large-scale
project, either via a virtual host or a login on a server. The rules:
we don’t charge you, so you can’t use banner/text paid advertising on
your site. Free means free all around. Donation request links are
fine, just don’t be obnoxious.

More or less unlimited bandwidth, too. Whee!

–Michael

23

Rubyforge/GForge has some rudimentary wiki service installed in new
project web hosts, but I don’t know anyone who uses it. Spam
protection is the main thing that concerns me about using that
default. Plus it’s ugly.

Maybe we could cook up an external service that pushed changes across
to the Rubyforge web host. That sounds like some work, though.

Evan

24

On Nov 10, 2007 7:00 PM, Zed A. Shaw [email protected] wrote:

Yes, it’s not about the cost of hosting at all. Since I wrote Mongrel I can pretty much ask for hosting and people will donate it. The “whoever” that controls rubyforge are people from rubycentral who have a huge stake in not being evil(ish) and I know most of them and trust them. Nobody really knows the dude at devjavu.

I must have to agree with Zed on this.

Even that Ezra is offering their “slice” of devjavu and even Rick
offers lighthouse power to the ticket system, we would be “bounded” to
external and core services that we don’t control – and the end of the
day, we will thank for making these service
being alive one more day.

On this topic I’m a bit of paranoic: even I mostly trust open-source
hosting services (like googlecode or even rubyforge) I keep the
original repository locally and push changes to the mirror.

So I have always a full copy of the repository, but not only because
can work offline, but mostly they cannot guarantee me they will be
100% available (after all, is a free service).

Maybe we are going too far from the purpose? We already have some
infrastructure in place, maybe we could enhance or RFE to get more of
the solution.

–
Luis L.
Multimedia systems

Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort,
which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that
is worthwhile.
Vince Lombardi

25

On 11/11/07, Evan W. [email protected] wrote:

Maybe we could cook up an external service that pushed changes across
to the Rubyforge web host. That sounds like some work, though.

… or set up a read-only SVN repository on the other site that mirrors
the
one on Rubyforge if we’d like to use Wiki and SVN integration. Pulling
should be easier, I think.

26

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:59:06 -0500
“Evan W.” [email protected] wrote:

Rubyforge/GForge has some rudimentary wiki service installed in new
project web hosts, but I don’t know anyone who uses it. Spam
protection is the main thing that concerns me about using that
default. Plus it’s ugly.

Maybe we could cook up an external service that pushed changes across
to the Rubyforge web host. That sounds like some work, though.

Now I got no problem with hooking up something like a wiki or anything
rubyforge don’t support somewhere else. That’s just pragmatic
necessity. But, I’d talk with the rubyforge folks. It’s worth a shot.

–
Zed A. Shaw

27

Yeah pulling is no problem; svnsync is made for just this purpose.

Evan