From: Tiago Nogueira Date: 2009-01-08T12:12:36+09:00 Subject: Re: WANTED: need a real web API for rubyforge.org Tom Copeland escreveu: > > On Jan 7, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Gregory Brown wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Tiago Nogueira >> wrote: >> >>> Greg , i'm really talking serious. I really want to contribuite with >>> our >>> community and i have time every night to dedicate >>> and to do it. >> >> I've pinged Tom. He should either join in here, or send you an email >> directly. >> >> It's great that you want to contribute to the community, but unless >> this is a need that is really, really, important to you, there are >> lots of other worthy projects that aren't at the level of 'would be >> nice', but instead at the level of 'really, really important'. I >> won't be one to judge which are which generally, but my point is there >> is software out there that needs to exist for Ruby that hasn't even >> been started. There is also a lot of code out there that needs to be >> ported to 1.9 if we plan to move forward as a community. >> >> I do think there is significant merit in making our central project >> repository top notch, but github has really filled in the gap (at >> least temporarily). There are other bigger, wider holes to be filled. > > > Yeah, this is a good discussion to have, and thanks to Greg for giving > me a heads up on it. > > I go back and forth on this - I'd love to have RubyForge written in > Rails with a nice ActiveRecord model and a RESTful API and all that... > but, for one thing: > > $ pwd > /var/www/gforge-3.0 > $ find . -name "*.php" | xargs wc -l | sum | cut -f 1 -d " " > 62284 > > For another, in my opinion, GForge isn't too bad; it's not the best, > but it's not terrible. And I don't know, when I think about rewriting > it, I start thinking that I should just read my PHP books and make any > changes that need to be made in the current language. > > Porting everything to Redmine is an idea, but the thought of migrating > the current data gives me a headache, and I'd hate to lose any > features. On the other hand, like someone said many features aren't > used. > > Another thing I think about that's tricky is the cutover. Maybe if > there was a way to switch things over little by little... but again, > is the implementation language really the problem? And are there > better places where that copious spare time can be spent? I dunno. > > Well, anyhow, those are some noodlings on the matter, > > Yours, > > Tom > > P.S. I might be overstating the difficulty of a rewrite. If the DB > schema was fixed (which would require lots of set_primary_key and > has_many :through, :foreign_key => blah), at least for the time when > it was being ported, it might not be too painful. > > Well Tom, your arguments are valid and I agree completly. I think this subject is causing a good discussion and i propose a votation here.I think that the hard job to rewrite will not be a problem if we make a "union of forces" :-) -tiago