Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>>> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>>>> well yeah but that might sum up to a dozends of people that will have to
>>>> wit
>>>> for an updated spec file vs. we having to hack up fusionforge code and
>>>> have
>>>> it maintained over years...
>>> The major issue with hacking up gforge in the past was that noone
>>> bothered to document what was changed, not that it was hacked in the
>>> first place.
>> while I agree that this should have been done in a dedicated repo/branch in
>> an SCM at least the changes done in the last few years (a handful of
>> security fixes) have been at least discussed on the gforge-admins list.
>> And as I said before our changes have been minor so that is not really our
>> issue.
>
> As far as I've seen, they've been the main holdup in upgrading gforge,
> as noone willing the work on the upgrade had any idea what the changes
> were. If it weren't for that, we probably could have just installed an
> new version and upgraded as other gforge users do.
well simply diffing the original source with ours would have answered
that quickly :)
Also until guillaume started working on this the upgrade scripts in
fusionforge didn't actually work due to the fact that our version was
soo outdated.
I Think the main and only issue is that we never had a concerted effort
between somebody who knows gforge/fusionforge and the sysadmin team (or
the gforge team for that matter). I think due to the huge number of
"external" users pgf is by far the most complex to upgrade system we
have and simply nobody has stepped up to waste days/weeks/months worth
of time yet (well I spend a lot of time on various migration attempts in
the past which all died due to various reasons so I'm a bit biased).
Stefan