Project Infrastructure Migration 2007 - Revision history

Strk: Strk moved page Project Infrastructure Migration to Project Infrastructure Migration 2007: better stick an year in the title

2017-02-09T09:46:32Z

2014-04-26T09:38:49Z

mark as historical document

2007-10-05T14:15:09Z

Updated to remove collabnet references, and to link to current services pages.

2007-02-07T04:28:20Z

Removed some migration related stuff that no longer seems to apply

2006-09-26T08:38:46Z

Infrastructure Integration: priorities as posted by Hobu

2006-09-13T20:20:34Z

2006-09-08T12:51:36Z

+cat Infrastructure

2006-09-07T06:06:33Z

Bug / Issue Tracking

2006-08-27T07:38:40Z

added two security related points

2006-08-21T12:02:09Z

Category:Incubation

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:38, 26 April 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	'''''This is a historical document (2007). You may want to check out the current [[Infrastructure Transition Plan 2014]] or [[:Category:Infrastructure]]'''''
		+
		+
	This document attempts to discuss the needs of projects currently (really initially) going through incubation. It attempts to address infrastructure needs, and migration strategies to OSGeo servers.		This document attempts to discuss the needs of projects currently (really initially) going through incubation. It attempts to address infrastructure needs, and migration strategies to OSGeo servers.

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 * Common LDAP infrastructure for single sign-on
 * SSL certificates for OSGeo sites (currently CN owned ?)
 == Further integration ==
@@ Line 264: / Line 228: @@
 * Tools that use Open Standards will be used where possible as reduces the need for vendor lock in.
 * Tools should be able to input data from existing OSGeo projects with minimal effort and without loosing history.
 [[Category:Incubation]]
 [[Category:Infrastructure]]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 * Common LDAP infrastructure for single sign-on
 * SSL certificates for OSGeo sites (currently CN owned ?)
 = Infrastructure Integration =

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 13 September 2006
Line 219:		Line 219:
	: we build a website for module information based on maven 2, a series of performance metrics are gathered using tools like clover.		: we build a website for module information based on maven 2, a series of performance metrics are gathered using tools like clover.

		+	= Tool Selection Criteria =
		+	If a project were to leave OSGeo, then they should be able to set up and use all the tools without a license cost.
		+	* Ideally, the tools should be open source, but a "Free for Open Source" licence is acceptable.
		+	* Tools that use Open Standards will be used where possible as reduces the need for vendor lock in.
		+	* Tools should be able to input data from existing OSGeo projects with minimal effort and without loosing history.

	= CollabNet's Point of View =		= CollabNet's Point of View =

← Older revision	Revision as of 09:46, 9 February 2017
(No difference)

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 * SF bug tracker: Mapbender
 * RT: GRASS (Gforge planned)
-* CN Issue Tracker: MapGuider
+* CN Issue Tracker: MapGuide
 CollabNet offers an issue tracker with roughly comparible capabities to other bug trackers.  (''please note significant distinctions here'') However, it is not clear that there is a clean way to migrate bugs from other systems to the CN issue tracker.  Lacking this it seems unlikely the projects with substantial historical bug databases will be eager to migrate to the CN infrastructure.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:38, 27 August 2006
Line 128:		Line 128:

	It would be desirable to have an automated archieving of IRC channels.		It would be desirable to have an automated archieving of IRC channels.
		+
		+	== Security ==
		+	* Common LDAP infrastructure for single sign-on
		+	* SSL certificates for OSGeo sites (currently CN owned ?)

	= Infrastructure Integration =		= Infrastructure Integration =

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:02, 21 August 2006
Line 226:		Line 226:

	We also understand the risks of migrating in and out of the Collabnet tool and I am getting specifics on this from support. I have noted what I do know below for some of the issues addressed. We want to do as much as we can to help you migrate and to feel that it is worth doing. My goal is to create a strong community and as part of that, the more projects hosted under one roof the better we attract and retain a great community members and their users.		We also understand the risks of migrating in and out of the Collabnet tool and I am getting specifics on this from support. I have noted what I do know below for some of the issues addressed. We want to do as much as we can to help you migrate and to feel that it is worth doing. My goal is to create a strong community and as part of that, the more projects hosted under one roof the better we attract and retain a great community members and their users.
		+
		+	[[Category:Incubation]]