Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
My next project will be a lightweight PHP alternative to Trac, since Trac is often confusing to install and is often a little too big or feature-rich for smaller project.
Features planned so far:
Wiki
Bug tracker
Forum(s)
Static pages (easily edited of course)
Markdown support
No code repo hosting (I consider this a feature since most people would prefer to use a 3rd party such as GitHub for the actual code hosting)
My question: if you were to use a self-hosted app for making a website about one of your open source projects, what would you want? Is there anything on that list that's missing? Would you absolutely require the ability to actually host the code repo on the site itself, or would you be ok hosting the code elsewhere (Google Code, GitHub, BitBucket), and using the site only to upload major versions?
Summary: if you were to use a self-hosted app to provide info and support for an open source project of yours, what would you want it to be like?
Redmine is my current favorite, I usually install it via BitNami
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 10 hours ago.
Improve this question
I'm still a weekend-programmer-wannabe trying to learn the basics of MVC so excuse my silly question.
I have some client libraries that I'm trying to integrate into Laravel (the Amazon MWS libraries to be exact https://www.developer.amazonservices.com/phpclients). As far as I can tell, this client library is already built for MVC (it has 'models' and clients lol so that's what I'm going by.
My suspicion is that I can just install these libraries via composer like through one of these packages https://packagist.org/packages/mcs/amazon-mws.
My questions:
If I'm integrating a client library, would you almost always do this via composer? Would it only be very rarely that you integrate these manually?
If installing a client library via composer, do I just search on packagist for someone who has created a repository for this library? My initial thought was that I would want the Developer to have this hosted on packagist, not somebody random (like it appears to be for the MWS package).
I know I'm asking a lot of really basic questions and I've probably made some silly assumptions so excuse my ignorance. MVC is still daunting for me.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am evaluating biicode in my organization.
I started this activity last year in september but did not continue because of other pressing concerns. I have resumed the same now.
It seems biicode has shut down their operations. None of their help links seem to be working. The login page as well as signup page are dead.
Is there anyone using biicode nowadays or is it dead?
Yes, biicode is closed. While you are evaluating options you can take a look to conan project and conan.io. It's an full open source project with a lot of community contributions right now.
Conan uses a more direct (and easier) approach to library dependencies management than biicode, supporting both binary packages as building from source.
Biicode as a company has shutdown. The central biicode servers have been closed, and will no longer operate. The current pages, blogs, etc, that can be seen are in fact static pages captured and hosted in github, thats why it is impossible to login/register. There are no support people (in fact no employees at all) since July 2015. If you still have interest, it is an OSS project (MIT), included the server, if you want to run biicode, you have to run your own server.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been wondering why so many coders have bad organization in their documents.
I think I know why.
As usual it has to do with standardization. If no standard it out there, everyone has to reinvent the wheel all the time.
So I upload a gem at RubyGems.org. But that was only 1/4 of it all.
I have to write a tutorial for it, making categories, text style, size, color etc
I have to generate API documentation from my code
I have to put it in Git-hub (never done this, but that should be correct?)
It's a painful process.
Wouldn't it be great if every gem followed the same documentation structure. You upload your gem, you write a documentation for it that everyone can edit, the API documentation has been generated too, maybe created automatically, if you provided your account information for example.
A good process.
I think that would boost up good collaboration and environment than every gem has its own structure (bad documentations) and putting API documentation here and there.
Don't you agree?
Would be nice if it were more of a style like that. It's worked well for wiki's having the content changeable by the community. I've found that gem documentation can be hit or miss sometimes. I think having the documentation editable would be good because people could rewrite parts that are unclear making it much more user friendly
Great suggestion!
This kind of documentation (tutorial, non-generated doc, ...) is better addressed by a wiki.
Most of the public source container out there now integrates one in their features.
GitHub recently improves its own wiki system.
It also proposes GitHub pages (for publishing content to the web by simply pushing content to one of your GitHub hosted repositories, with user pages or project pages, and with Jekyll for even more Makdown file formats)
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Am trying to implement a few deployment policies in my organization. Usually, we do all the development on localhost and then simply deploy the site to the production site (i.e. site.com). Am trying to place a rule to first deploy the site to say beta.site.com, test it completely and then deploy it to the final site. Now I know many companies use dev.site.com, then beta.site.com and then finally site.com.
Am wondering what exactly is the purpose of dev.site.com and then beta.site.com. Will be both be active at the same time or is it that during development we should use dev.site.com and then later beta.site.com? What exactly is the use of a staging server/site then?
Please feel free to ask if anything is unclear. Thankyou for your time and patience.
This is totally up to interpretation and there are no binding rules, but everywhere I've been it's been along these lines:
dev. for the development environment, a full mirror of the site/project/product, to which developers upload changes to find out whether things work at all, and where they can test new technologies / products / versions / settings. Often updated with data from the public version (if one exists)
beta. for staging versions that have been tested by the developers, but need "higher-level" user testing / review before going public, already available to a wider circle than just the developers (colleagues, the whole team, beta testers, the public, etc.)
I would expect that your dev site would primarily be for internal Q/A. For a site like this, I would restrict the incoming IP addresses to those of your own company so your development site isn't exposed to the general public accidentally.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Should I just go to SourceForge and try to find something that looks interesting by doing a search? Or is there a Ruby-specific website that helps you to find open source projects to contribute to?
After you find it one, do you usually just send an email to the project owner to see if you can help or do you just start submitting code to their repository and they will take it or leave it after reviewing it for quality?
The standard hosting site for Ruby projects is RubyForge. Another site that is slightly older than RubyForge, is the Ruby Application Archive (RAA). In addition to RubyForge, there are also a lot of Ruby projects hosted on SourceForge. Projects that are specific or related to JRuby, are sometimes hosted on CodeHaus or Sun's new project hosting site Kenai. For IronRuby, some projects live on CodePlex. Projects that use the Git Version Control System, are often hosted on either Gitorious or GitHub, whereas projects that use the Darcs Version Control System tend to be self-hosted.
However, especially larger Ruby projects often have their own infrastructure, e.g. Merb, DataMapper and of course Ruby on Rails.
I'd recommend going onto github to look for projects. You can search around, check things out easily and its easier for the project owner to manager your changes.