Hi Erik,
Thanks for the welcome. To clarify, common-lisp.net is a valuable
resource already and it provides repo hosting, so they aren't
necessarily incompatible, but I worry that maintaining and improving
the services that are available elsewhere comes at an opportunity cost
that seems all the greater due to the small size of the CL community.
Of course, there's a lot of history and context I'm missing, that's
just my take as a relative outsider.
I joined this list a week or so ago to ask how to clone a hosted repo.
I could see the gitweb but there was no clone url provided. I was
about to write to the list when, on reading another thread I saw a
clone url for a different project and worked out the required
transform from project to git url.
I'd be happy to look into how CL resources are and could be indexed.
Though time is always limited, happily CL is now my day job so I hope
to become a more effective user of the language this year.
BTW my email to you and the list bounced from the list. The uribl
service said that one of the urls in the email was rejected, but I've
entered all of them into the uribl site and they are either unknown or
whitelisted. I hope this message gets through.
Cheers,
Andy
On 7 February 2015 at 09:00, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thank you for responding!
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <ubermonk(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> I'm new to this list and haven't requested any further access to the
>> services you linked to.
>
>
> Welcome! Hope you find your way around soon. Your opinion as a potential
> user is just as important as one of long-time users: if we succeed to
> convert potential users into actual users, we're achieving the goal of
> supporting the Common Lisp community, I'd hope.
>
>>
>> Coming from the Perl world, what I'd like to
>> see is something like MetaCPAN https://metacpan.org
>
>
> I love metacpan indeed and I like how it uses the META.yml file to generate
> a lot of information. I'm not sure if the ASDF files that are currently
> around have enough information in them to be useful in this respect.
> However, it would definitely seem like something to stimulate in library
> authors to add the "required" elements to the ASDF files.
>
>> It is essentially a nice web interface and index to a bunch of
>> services, most of which exist independently.
>
>
>> A large number of Perl
>> modules use github for repository hosting, some use bitbucket or
>> otherwise.
>
>
> Right. In Common Lisp it's no different these days.
>
>>
>> For issue tracking, some use the official Perl
>> RequestTracker instance, others use github or bitbucket. Testing
>> happens both via the Perl testers network and TravisCI on github.
>
>
> For issue tracking, there's no central "standard" that projects use in
> Common Lisp: some have a BUGS file in the root of their development tree,
> others use launchpad, github or trac.common-lisp.net. As for CI, there's
> really no CI for individual projects within the Common Lisp community at the
> moment, although I know Zach Beane - maintainer of quicklisp - runs daily
> builds for the entire quicklisp world. Those are - as far as I understand -
> just builds. Not test suites.
>
>>
>> What enables this is the CPAN::Meta spec, which is reminiscent of
>> ASDF: https://metacpan.org/pod/CPAN::Meta::Spec
>>
>> Gitlab is nice enough but it can be a pain to administer (I crashed a
>> local install recently with a not-so-unusual construct in an Org
>> format readme file).
>
>
> Ok. Thanks for the warning :-) However, currently we have a lot of
> git/darcs/hg/cvs/svn repositories on a host with very little structure on
> the DVCS side of things. Even to the extent that Marco Antoniotti seems to
> have been working more than a month to migrate a project of his to Git and
> get common-lisp.net services working with it. One of the reasons behind this
> proposal is to increase the value of common-lisp.net to projects as well as
> new-comers like you: if there's more structure, it's easier to document for
> the site's maintainers how things work and for project owners to contribute
> to multiple projects and for newcomers to find the projects they want to
> contribute to.
>
>> I guess my question is, what if the site just focused on the core
>> business of being an index to a federated community of resources?
>
>
> I think your idea is perfect. We don't have such an index yet; we do have
> similar "services which exist independently": Quicklisp, Quickdocs,
> cl-user.net, cliki.net and common-lisp.net to name some. I absolutely do
> think there's room for such a meta service in the community.
>
> Do I understand your suggestion correctly that you see no value in hosting
> any kind of code or project on common-lisp.net? Over the past 10 years,
> common-lisp.net has been hosting Common Lisp projects, providing them
> more-or-less with the services they needed. Due to the number of projects
> being hosted on the infrastructure it also became more-or-less of an index.
> However, the more-or-less-index roles can also be claimed by cliki.net and
> cl-user.net.
>
> While there is absolutely an opportunity to grow common-lisp.net with the
> meta function, I personally (in the shorter term) only have time to work on
> the hugely necessary improvements to be made to common-lisp.net, the current
> site and infrastructure itself. The board of the Common Lisp Foundation (the
> stewards of the common-lisp.net domain) heartily welcome efforts to support
> the use of Common Lisp. Do you feel that you could work on an ASDF based
> meta index?
>
> Next to that, there could be other services for which we think there's room
> also room for CI (Continuous Integration) specifically directed at Common
> Lisp projects (there's cl-test-grid, which is great, but doesn't provide
> continuous integration for individual Common Lisp projects - rather it has
> been targetted so far at assessing quality of Quicklisp distributions and
> providing feedback thereof to library and implementation developers).
>
>> Hopefully I haven't offended anyone with these suggestions.
>
>
> Definitely not offended here. I'm glad you took the time to respond.
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Erik.
>
> http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
> Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for responding!
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <ubermonk(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> I'm new to this list and haven't requested any further access to the
> services you linked to.
Welcome! Hope you find your way around soon. Your opinion as a potential
user is just as important as one of long-time users: if we succeed to
convert potential users into actual users, we're achieving the goal of
supporting the Common Lisp community, I'd hope.
> Coming from the Perl world, what I'd like to
> see is something like MetaCPAN https://metacpan.org
>
I love metacpan indeed and I like how it uses the META.yml file to generate
a lot of information. I'm not sure if the ASDF files that are currently
around have enough information in them to be useful in this respect.
However, it would definitely seem like something to stimulate in library
authors to add the "required" elements to the ASDF files.
It is essentially a nice web interface and index to a bunch of
> services, most of which exist independently.
A large number of Perl
> modules use github for repository hosting, some use bitbucket or
> otherwise.
Right. In Common Lisp it's no different these days.
> For issue tracking, some use the official Perl
> RequestTracker instance, others use github or bitbucket. Testing
> happens both via the Perl testers network and TravisCI on github.
>
For issue tracking, there's no central "standard" that projects use in
Common Lisp: some have a BUGS file in the root of their development tree,
others use launchpad, github or trac.common-lisp.net. As for CI, there's
really no CI for individual projects within the Common Lisp community at
the moment, although I know Zach Beane - maintainer of quicklisp - runs
daily builds for the entire quicklisp world. Those are - as far as I
understand - just builds. Not test suites.
> What enables this is the CPAN::Meta spec, which is reminiscent of
> ASDF: https://metacpan.org/pod/CPAN::Meta::Spec
>
> Gitlab is nice enough but it can be a pain to administer (I crashed a
> local install recently with a not-so-unusual construct in an Org
> format readme file).
>
Ok. Thanks for the warning :-) However, currently we have a lot of
git/darcs/hg/cvs/svn repositories on a host with very little structure on
the DVCS side of things. Even to the extent that Marco Antoniotti seems to
have been working more than a month to migrate a project of his to Git and
get common-lisp.net services working with it. One of the reasons behind
this proposal is to increase the value of common-lisp.net to projects as
well as new-comers like you: if there's more structure, it's easier to
document for the site's maintainers how things work and for project owners
to contribute to multiple projects and for newcomers to find the projects
they want to contribute to.
I guess my question is, what if the site just focused on the core
> business of being an index to a federated community of resources?
>
I think your idea is perfect. We don't have such an index yet; we do have
similar "services which exist independently": Quicklisp, Quickdocs,
cl-user.net, cliki.netandcommon-lisp.net to name some. I absolutely do
think there's room for such a meta service in the community.
Do I understand your suggestion correctly that you see no value in hosting
any kind of code or project on common-lisp.net? Over the past 10 years,
common-lisp.net has been hosting Common Lisp projects, providing them
more-or-less with the services they needed. Due to the number of projects
being hosted on the infrastructure it also became more-or-less of an index.
However, the more-or-less-index roles can also be claimed by cliki.net and
cl-user.net.
While there is absolutely an opportunity to grow common-lisp.net with the
meta function, I personally (in the shorter term) only have time to work on
the hugely necessary improvements to be made to common-lisp.net, the
current site and infrastructure itself. The board of the Common Lisp
Foundation (the stewards of the common-lisp.netdomain) heartily welcome
efforts to support the use of Common Lisp. Do you feel that you could work
on an ASDF based meta index?
Next to that, there could be other services for which we think there's room
also room for CI (Continuous Integration) specifically directed at Common
Lisp projects (there's cl-test-grid, which is great, but doesn't provide
continuous integration for individual Common Lisp projects - rather it has
been targetted so far at assessing quality of Quicklisp distributions and
providing feedback thereof to library and implementation developers).
Hopefully I haven't offended anyone with these suggestions.
>
Definitely not offended here. I'm glad you took the time to respond.
--
Bye,
Erik.
http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
Hi all,
Over the past months, I've observed a few issues with common-lisp.net in
its current state (none of them particularly new, it's just that I now have
taken the time to think about them):
- Its way of becoming a "member" of the site is very archaic (writing to a
mailing list to ask for membership)
- The site has adapted badly to the new era of DVCSes:
Even for long-time users, it isn't straightforward how to publish new
git repositories in a way that web-browsing and http downloading are
supported
- The site's services use a wide range of non-integrated applications
* which need to be set up on every migration (every some 3 years)
* easily break in some ways or others due to the sheer number of
different services and configurations
- Some (many?) functionalities are duplicated - i.e. provided by multiple
services
An example being Subversion and Git repository web browsing which are
provided by Trac and ViewVC/gitweb respectively
For a full listing of all currently available (end-user) services hosted on
the site, please see http://trac.common-lisp.net/clo/wiki/UserServices .
Concluding from the above, due to the evolutionary growth of the site, a
large number of services have been instated which are now blocking further
development of the site and even blocking the ultimate goals of the site by
blocking access for new-comers. Please note that some may argue that the
site needs very little maintenance. This is currently true due to the
nature of the activity on the site: there are hardly any new users and
hardly any activity in terms of new projects being created. The proposal
below tries to change that, meaning that maintenance of common-lisp.net
*will* require more work from the site/server's maintainers.
To address the problems identified above, I'm submitting the following
proposal about a new target infrastructure that makes the system both much
more user friendly as well as much more maintainer friendly.
(a) Structure DVCS hosting by installing [http://gitlab.org/ GitLab]
This would mean moving all Git repositories within the management
realms of this Git hosting management solution, empowering users to create
their own repositories, wiki's, ticket lists, projects, etc.
(b) Stop supporting CVS repositories
Repositories can be migrated to Git or Subversion, based on project
members' preference
(c) Stop supporting Darcs repositories
Repositories can be migrated to Git
By using GitLab, there's a single place for users to search and find all
git repositories hosted on the site. They can create their own, both as
projects and in their private (but not hidden) namespace. In addition to
this (searchable) structure, GitLab provides a consistent interface for
services that are currently not even supported (merge/pull requests,
commits review and snippets) or available separately (source browsing).
The idea is to continue Subversion support because we have active projects
using it and because it has HTTP support ("the modern web") as well as
active security support. Next to that, with Trac, we can come close to the
functionalities offered by GitLab -- a suite of functionalities I consider
"complete".
The list of changes above means the following benefits for the maintainers:
As a consequence of (a), we can:
* Stop running gitweb
* Stop supporting Trac's 'git' plugin
--> GitLab includes repository browsing
As a consequence of (b), we can:
* Stop running cvsd
* Stop running ViewVC
--> Repository browsing for Subversion supported through Trac, Git through
GitLab
As a consequence of (c), we can:
* Stop running darcsweb
The darcs, hg and cvs binaries will remain available on the common-lisp.net
machine, but their use will not be encouraged, nor will there be webbased
source browsing or other support.
Note that I'm submitting this proposal for discussion -- nothing is set in
stone and I'm soliciting your feedback. I'm aware that a more detailed plan
and especially timeline will need to follow. There isn't one (yet), because
I'd like to know your opinions on this first. Also, even if the feedback on
this proposal is positive, things are not going to change over night: the
installation of GitLab and the migration of repositories into it, will take
some time (especially for the development of the correct migration/seeding
scripts/programs).
I've asked your feedback, please start feeding back! :-)
--
Bye,
Erik.
http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
Hi,
Monitoring the mail system, I've found that Google still has us rate
limited. Trying to understand why, I've come up with the following reason:
Google verifies DKIM as part of their criteria for identifying SPAM. We
sign our outgoing mail, so, there shouldn't be a problem. However, some
mail *already* has a DKIM signature. Still no problem, but most mailing
lists change the Subject: line by prepending the mailing list name.
Now *that*'s a problem: it invalidates the pre-existing signature! So,
simply strip the old DKIM headers, you might say. That will make the
problem go away. Well, in fact it probably doesn't: domains which use DKIM
can also state a policy that all mail from the domain should be signed.
Stripping the DKIM signature makes the mail invalid with respect to that
policy, again triggering the SPAM rules.
My conclusion: we have to stop munging the Subject: line in the mailman
mailing lists.
Any comments?
--
Bye,
Erik.
http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
Hi,
The frontpage of the [http://trac.common-lisp.net/clo/wiki/WikiStart Trac
wiki for the project] lists a clo-announce mailing list. While I don't see
much value in having an announcements list for the project itself, I do see
value in having a (limited posters only!) mailing list to do announcements
regarding the site, like maintenance, changes, etc.
Is this a good or a bad idea? (Who doesn't want these updates can simply
decide not to subscribe...)
--
Bye,
Erik.
http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
Hi,
The frontpage of the [http://trac.common-lisp.net/clo/wiki/WikiStart Trac
wiki for the project] lists a clo-announce mailing list. While I don't see
much value in having an announcements list for the project itself, I do see
value in having a (limited posters only!) mailing list to do announcements
regarding the site, like maintenance, changes, etc.
Is this a good or a bad idea? (Who doesn't want these updates can simply
decide not to subscribe...)
--
Bye,
Erik.
http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.