We should be tracking the canonical repository for the purposes of the Official Project, and that's https://github.com/wikimedia/limn -- you'll be merging all your changes into there, after all, yes?
--
David Schoonover
dsc@wikimedia.org
On Monday, 22 October 2012 at 8:55 p, Dan Andreescu wrote:
> I vote b) and I'm only responsible for one repo right now, which I hope will become increasingly remarkable :)
>
>
https://github.com/milimetric/limn
>
> But that's just a fork of /wikimedia/limn. How are we handling forks?
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM, evan rosen <erosen@wikimedia.org (mailto:erosen@wikimedia.org)> wrote:
> > Hi Quim,
> >
> > There are a few things worth mentioning about the repos I am responsible for:
> >
> > these repos should be deleted, or at least not publicized:
> >
> > analytics/global-dev/reportcard
> > analytics/global-dev/misc
> >
> > this repo is hosted on gerrit and github, but they are not yet synced
> > and the github version is the most up to date:
> >
> > main:
> >
https://github.com/embr/sqproc
> > out of date mirror:
> > analytics/global-dev/sqproc
> >
> > I also have a variety of github projects which are not tracked on
> > gerrit but are analytics-y, though i don't think any of them would
> > qualify as remarkable:
> >
> >
https://github.com/embr/limnpy
> >
https://github.com/embr/userstats
> >
https://github.com/embr/gcat
> >
> > evan
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/12, Andrew Otto <otto@wikimedia.org (mailto:otto@wikimedia.org)> wrote:
> > > Hi Quim!
> > >
> > > Probably b), with these as 'remarkable':
> > >
> > > analytics/gerrit-stats
> > > analytics/udp-filters
> > > analytics/udplog
> > >
> > > Also, there are these on Github:
> > >
> > >
https://github.com/wikimedia/limn
> > >
https://github.com/wmf-analytics/puppet-cdh4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Quim Gil <quimgil@gmail.com (mailto:quimgil@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi, these days I'm polishing the presence of the Wikimedia Foundation at
> > >>
http://ohloh.net in order to help promoting all the cool open suce
> > >> projects we are developing.
> > >>
> > >> The Analytics team has a nice section in Gerrit including many projects
> > >> (see below). How would you prefer to have this reflected in Ohloh?
> > >>
> > >> a) All repos under a generic Wikimedia Analytics project.
> > >>
> > >> b) A few remarkable projects on its own (e.g. reportcard, gerrit-stats...)
> > >> and the rest under a common umbrella.
> > >>
> > >> c) Each repo has its own project.
> > >>
> > >> Option A is easier to implement but offers less level of detail. Option C
> > >> might add too much fragmentation if there are many tiny and not so
> > >> relevant projects. I can go for the option you prefer.
> > >>
> > >> Also let me know if there are repos not worth of listing in Ohloh e.g.
> > >> internal stuff, playgrounds, data only repos interesting only for WMF
> > >> dudes...
> > >>
> > >> Thank you!
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Quim
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Analytics mailing list
> > >> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org)
> > >>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Analytics mailing list
> > > Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org)
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Analytics mailing list
> > Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org)
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org)
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>