Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

Carsten Block
Administrator
See: http://www.atlassian.com/agile/tools/

We might want to consider applying for an open source license.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Carsten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

adis
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

Carsten Block
Administrator
Hi!

Okay, we need to decide this asap. Based on the existing documentation we wrote ~50 Stories (aka Tickets, aka issues) on paper cards and put it intoit our storyboard here in Karlsruhe. We want to put these into an electronic issue tracker asap in order to commonly share, discuss, and report progress. 

But I will not commit any resources to accomplishing this transfer task until we have a clear commitment to one technical solution or another. I looked at github issue tracker and found it quite basic but okay. Same holds true for the github wiki. It supports math formulas, images, code snippets, internal code references, and it has no ads in it. It even supports different markup styles. Everything we need imho.

So let's collect the available alternatives and vote: 

Alternatives:
-----------------
1.) Apply for Open Source License at Atlassian and set up integrated tool suite (git, fisheye code sharing, jira + greenhopper issue tracking, confluence wiki, clover code coverage)
2.) Use Github for code management, wiki, issue tracking
3.) Use Public Trac repo with git module for code management, wiki, issue tracking 
4.) Use github with external wiki (such as media wiki that does not allow integrated cross linking) and possibly another issue tracker
5.) ?


My vote:
-----------
+1 for #1
+1 for #2

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Carsten

P.S.: I really feel that the only thing we *really* should avoid it to separate wiki, code base and issue tracker into distinct non-integrated tools. 


Am 23.11.2010 um 12:36 schrieb adis.mustedanagic [via Power TAC Developers]:

When it comes to project management tools, I've been using Redmine [http://www.redmine.org/] for project management.
It's already open-source, and from my limited experience of industry practices, it seems to be quite popular.

Cheers,
Adis

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Carsten Block [via Power TAC Developers] <<a href="x-msg://4/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=1952830&amp;i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">[hidden email]> wrote:
See: http://www.atlassian.com/agile/tools/

We might want to consider applying for an open source license.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Carsten



View message @ http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1952084.html
To start a new topic under Power TAC Developers, email <a href="x-msg://4/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=1952830&amp;i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Power TAC Developers, click here.






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

grampajohn
Administrator
Colleagues -

Given that most of the members of this team are not full-time
professional developers, we do not need or want heavy-duty professional
tools. Primary concerns are minimal learning curve, and ease of use.
That rules out the Atlassian approach, in my opinion. I've used Jira,
and it's not a short learning curve. There's just too much stuff there.
Also, as far as I can tell Atlassian uses svn for version control, and I
don't ever want to have to do a branch merge in svn again.

My votes would be for either #2, or #4 with github version and issue
tracking, and the Rotterdam mediawiki for documentation. You left out
the nabble mailing list, where this conversation is taking place. Do we
continue with that? I guess it's OK, but only if once we make a final
decision its recorded in github (software or ticket) or in the wiki.

But I strongly prefer #4 to #2, because the github wiki is very flimsy.
It has no way to include images, unless you upload them somewhere else
and then just link to them. MediaWiki has a rich set of plugins (which
we can control, once we get the Rotterdam installation configured
correctly), includes images, and separates page-related discussions from
the pages themselves. I find these features compelling, while remaining
simple and easy to use.

Redmine looks interesting, but I'm not sure it would deliver more value
and time than it would consume on this project.

John


On 11/23/10 13:11, Carsten Block [via Power TAC Developers] wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Okay, we need to decide this asap. Based on the existing documentation
> we wrote ~50 Stories (aka Tickets, aka issues) on paper cards and put it
> intoit our storyboard here in Karlsruhe. We want to put these into an
> electronic issue tracker asap in order to commonly share, discuss, and
> report progress.
>
> But I will not commit any resources to accomplishing this transfer task
> until we have a clear commitment to one technical solution or another. I
> looked at github issue tracker and found it quite basic but okay. Same
> holds true for the github wiki. It supports math formulas, images, code
> snippets, internal code references, and it has no ads in it. It even
> supports different markup styles. Everything we need imho.
>
> So let's collect the available alternatives and vote:
>
> Alternatives:
> -----------------
> 1.) Apply for Open Source License at Atlassian and set up integrated
> tool suite (git, fisheye code sharing, jira + greenhopper issue
> tracking, confluence wiki, clover code coverage)
> 2.) Use Github for code management, wiki, issue tracking
> 3.) Use Public Trac repo with git module for code management, wiki,
> issue tracking
> 4.) Use github with external wiki (such as media wiki that does not
> allow integrated cross linking) and possibly another issue tracker
> 5.) ?
>
>
> My vote:
> -----------
> +1 for #1
> +1 for #2
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Carsten
>
> P.S.: I really feel that the only thing we *really* should avoid it
> to separate wiki, code base and issue tracker into distinct
> non-integrated tools.
>
>
> Am 23.11.2010 um 12:36 schrieb adis.mustedanagic [via Power TAC Developers]:
>
>> When it comes to project management tools, I've been using Redmine
>> [http://www.redmine.org/] for project management.
>> It's already open-source, and from my limited experience of industry
>> practices, it seems to be quite popular.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Adis
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Carsten Block [via Power TAC
>> Developers] <[hidden email] <#>> wrote:
>>
>>     See: http://www.atlassian.com/agile/tools/
>>
>>     We might want to consider applying for an open source license.
>>
>>     Thoughts?
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Carsten
>>
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     View message @
>>     http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1952084.html
>>     <http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1952084.html?by-user=t&by-user=t>
>>     To start a new topic under Power TAC Developers, email [hidden
>>     email] <#>
>>     To unsubscribe from Power TAC Developers, click here
>>     <
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> View message @
>>
http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1952830.html
>> <http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1952830.html?by-user=t>
>> To start a new topic under Power TAC Developers, email [hidden email]
>> </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1955683&i=0>
>> To unsubscribe from Power TAC Developers, click here
>> <
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View message @
>
http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1955683.html
> To start a new topic under Power TAC Developers, email
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from Power TAC Developers, click here
> <
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

Wolf
Administrator

Hello All,

 

My vote is for #4 as well, since starting from next week, the Rotterdam Media Wiki will be fully functional and under our full control. That is quite important, since we don’t dependent on external sources.

 

Thanks,

 

Wolf

 

From: grampajohn [via Power TAC Developers] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:00 PM
To: Wolf Ketter
Subject: Re: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

 

Colleagues -

Given that most of the members of this team are not full-time
professional developers, we do not need or want heavy-duty professional
tools. Primary concerns are minimal learning curve, and ease of use.
That rules out the Atlassian approach, in my opinion. I've used Jira,
and it's not a short learning curve. There's just too much stuff there.
Also, as far as I can tell Atlassian uses svn for version control, and I
don't ever want to have to do a branch merge in svn again.

My votes would be for either #2, or #4 with github version and issue
tracking, and the Rotterdam mediawiki for documentation. You left out
the nabble mailing list, where this conversation is taking place. Do we
continue with that? I guess it's OK, but only if once we make a final
decision its recorded in github (software or ticket) or in the wiki.

But I strongly prefer #4 to #2, because the github wiki is very flimsy.
It has no way to include images, unless you upload them somewhere else
and then just link to them. MediaWiki has a rich set of plugins (which
we can control, once we get the Rotterdam installation configured
correctly), includes images, and separates page-related discussions from
the pages themselves. I find these features compelling, while remaining
simple and easy to use.

Redmine looks interesting, but I'm not sure it would deliver more value
and time than it would consume on this project.

John


On 11/23/10 13:11, Carsten Block [via Power TAC Developers] wrote:


> Hi!
>
> Okay, we need to decide this asap. Based on the existing documentation
> we wrote ~50 Stories (aka Tickets, aka issues) on paper cards and put it
> intoit our storyboard here in Karlsruhe. We want to put these into an
> electronic issue tracker asap in order to commonly share, discuss, and
> report progress.
>
> But I will not commit any resources to accomplishing this transfer task
> until we have a clear commitment to one technical solution or another. I
> looked at github issue tracker and found it quite basic but okay. Same
> holds true for the github wiki. It supports math formulas, images, code
> snippets, internal code references, and it has no ads in it. It even
> supports different markup styles. Everything we need imho.
>
> So let's collect the available alternatives and vote:
>
> Alternatives:
> -----------------
> 1.) Apply for Open Source License at Atlassian and set up integrated
> tool suite (git, fisheye code sharing, jira + greenhopper issue
> tracking, confluence wiki, clover code coverage)
> 2.) Use Github for code management, wiki, issue tracking
> 3.) Use Public Trac repo with git module for code management, wiki,
> issue tracking
> 4.) Use github with external wiki (such as media wiki that does not
> allow integrated cross linking) and possibly another issue tracker
> 5.) ?
>
>
> My vote:
> -----------
> +1 for #1
> +1 for #2
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Carsten
>
> P.S.: I really feel that the only thing we *really* should avoid it
> to separate wiki, code base and issue tracker into distinct
> non-integrated tools.
>
>
> Am 23.11.2010 um 12:36 schrieb adis.mustedanagic [via Power TAC Developers]:
>
>> When it comes to project management tools, I've been using Redmine
>> [http://www.redmine.org/] for project management.
>> It's already open-source, and from my limited experience of industry
>> practices, it seems to be quite popular.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Adis
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Carsten Block [via Power TAC
>> Developers] <[hidden email] <#>> wrote:
>>
>>     See: http://www.atlassian.com/agile/tools/
>>
>>     We might want to consider applying for an open source license.
>>
>>     Thoughts?
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Carsten
>>
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     View message @
>>     http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1952084.html
>>     <http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1952084.html?by-user=t&by-user=t>
>>     To start a new topic under Power TAC Developers, email [hidden
>>     email] <#>
>>     To unsubscribe from Power TAC Developers, click here
>>     <
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> View message @
>> http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1952830.html
>> <http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1952830.html?by-user=t>
>> To start a new topic under Power TAC Developers, email [hidden email]
>> </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=1955683&i=0>
>> To unsubscribe from Power TAC Developers, click here
>> <
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View message @
> http://power-tac-developers.975333.n3.nabble.com/Integrated-Atlassian-Tool-Suite-instead-of-Github-MediaWiki-External-Bugtracker-etc-tp1952084p1955683.html
> To start a new topic under Power TAC Developers, email
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from Power TAC Developers, click here
> <
>





Disclaimer
De informatie verzonden in dit e-mail bericht inclusief de bijlage(n) is vertrouwelijk en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde van dit bericht. Lees verder: http://www.eur.nl/email-disclaimer.

The information in this e-mail message is confidential and may be legally privileged. Read more: http://www.eur.nl/english/email-disclaimer.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

ddauer
My vote goes for #1 for the following reason: We really should have an integrated environment so that we will not have to keep track of changes happening on multiple platforms (proposed in #4). I guess people will get tired quickly of switching between these sites. I certainly do not want to have to reference some github issue on the wiki or vice versa.

#2 is also not the best option because wiki and issue tracker on github are too limited in my opinion to support the large number of people involved in this project.

I also do not think that the learning curve for the Atlassian Tool Suite is too steep. The setup would be done by us in Karlsruhe (for now), so there is no additional work for John or Wolf. MediaWiki is not yet completely setup, there is nothing on github to day, so we would not lose any work. Copying and pasting content from Wikia is also not all that needs to be done as a lot of content is outdated and needs to be updated.

Again, I really think we should go with the Atlassian Tool Suite. At the beginning, we would use a private license while applying for the educational license so we could start right now.

Cheers,

David
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

ddauer
In reply to this post by Wolf
Another point supporting the Atlassian Tool Suite is that it also includes Bamboo (http://www.atlassian.com/software/bamboo/) which is going to help with the automated build process a lot. Also, Git repositories are supported (http://www.atlassian.com/software/fisheye/tour/enterprise-dvcs.jsp).

David

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, David Dauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
My vote goes for #1 for the following reason: We really should have an integrated environment so that we will not have to keep track of changes happening on multiple platforms (proposed in #4). I guess people will get tired quickly of switching between these sites. I certainly do not want to have to reference some github issue on the wiki or vice versa.

#2 is also not the best option because wiki and issue tracker on github are too limited in my opinion to support the large number of people involved in this project.

I also do not think that the learning curve for the Atlassian Tool Suite is too steep. The setup would be done by us in Karlsruhe (for now), so there is no additional work for John or Wolf. MediaWiki is not yet completely setup, there is nothing on github to day, so we would not lose any work. Copying and pasting content from Wikia is also not all that needs to be done as a lot of content is outdated and needs to be updated.

Again, I really think we should go with the Atlassian Tool Suite. At the beginning, we would use a private license while applying for the educational license so we could start right now.

Cheers,

David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

grampajohn
Administrator
On 11/24/2010 07:49 AM, ddauer [via Power TAC Developers] wrote:
> Another point supporting the Atlassian Tool Suite is that it also
> includes Bamboo (http://www.atlassian.com/software/bamboo/) which is
> going to help with the automated build process a lot. Also, Git
> repositories are supported
> (http://www.atlassian.com/software/fisheye/tour/enterprise-dvcs.jsp).

If I were them, looking at our project, I would say it's academic.
That's not free. Also, Atlassian is a commercial enterprise with
relatively high prices. I do not have confidence that even if they let
us in now, they would not change their minds later. I don't want to have
to switch later because somebody in a marketing department decides we
should be paying for the service.

I see nothing wrong with separating out the wiki. I have linked trac
tickets to a Twiki wiki - in both directions - several times. It's not a
big deal, but it's admittedly easier in the trac wiki.

My view of the wiki is that it's for collecting our decisions about what
the game is, how the system is built and installed, how you build
agents, how you run experiments. Ultimately it will be communication
with and among the user community, probably more than a developer tool.
We may, in fact, want to use the github wiki for a developer tool if
there's a need to keep low-level details out of the (ultimately) more
user-oriented MediaWiki.

I've been doing periodic (12-hour or 24-hour cycle, in most cases)
integration on projects for over 20 years, using cron jobs. I don't see
a CI server as a compelling advantage, unless you are building systems
that must be ported to a variety of platforms, or you have a large team
of full-time developers. We have neither.

Ultimately, this is Wolf's decision, because he is the one most likely
to have his career and reputation hanging on this project.

John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

Wolf
Administrator

Next week Monday the Media Wiki will be completely setup, and it makes sense to move the material there for several reasons as outlined before. One strong reason is that some the academic license for  Atlassian is not easy to get even for academics, and we can never be sure what they changing in the setup. Let’s continue with the Media Wiki, since with Jeroen we have a great person who is working full time at Erasmus and makes sure everything is going smoothly.

 

Thanks,

 

Wolf

 

From: grampajohn [via Power TAC Developers] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 04:16 PM
To: Wolf Ketter
Subject: Re: Integrated Atlassian Tool Suite instead of Github, MediaWiki, External Bugtracker etc.

 

On 11/24/2010 07:49 AM, ddauer [via Power TAC Developers] wrote:
> Another point supporting the Atlassian Tool Suite is that it also
> includes Bamboo (http://www.atlassian.com/software/bamboo/) which is
> going to help with the automated build process a lot. Also, Git
> repositories are supported
> (http://www.atlassian.com/software/fisheye/tour/enterprise-dvcs.jsp).

If I were them, looking at our project, I would say it's academic.
That's not free. Also, Atlassian is a commercial enterprise with
relatively high prices. I do not have confidence that even if they let
us in now, they would not change their minds later. I don't want to have
to switch later because somebody in a marketing department decides we
should be paying for the service.

I see nothing wrong with separating out the wiki. I have linked trac
tickets to a Twiki wiki - in both directions - several times. It's not a
big deal, but it's admittedly easier in the trac wiki.

My view of the wiki is that it's for collecting our decisions about what
the game is, how the system is built and installed, how you build
agents, how you run experiments. Ultimately it will be communication
with and among the user community, probably more than a developer tool.
We may, in fact, want to use the github wiki for a developer tool if
there's a need to keep low-level details out of the (ultimately) more
user-oriented MediaWiki.

I've been doing periodic (12-hour or 24-hour cycle, in most cases)
integration on projects for over 20 years, using cron jobs. I don't see
a CI server as a compelling advantage, unless you are building systems
that must be ported to a variety of platforms, or you have a large team
of full-time developers. We have neither.

Ultimately, this is Wolf's decision, because he is the one most likely
to have his career and reputation hanging on this project.

John




Disclaimer
De informatie verzonden in dit e-mail bericht inclusief de bijlage(n) is vertrouwelijk en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde van dit bericht. Lees verder: http://www.eur.nl/email-disclaimer.

The information in this e-mail message is confidential and may be legally privileged. Read more: http://www.eur.nl/english/email-disclaimer.

Loading...