Comments on: Self-hosting Launchpad? Dream on… http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/2009/10/29/self-hosting-launchpad-dream-on/ The Art of Being Open Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:54:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: LenZ http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/2009/10/29/self-hosting-launchpad-dream-on/comment-page-1/#comment-250385 LenZ Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:23:04 +0000 http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/?p=691#comment-250385 I honestly admit that I did not read all the announcements and documentation in detail, but when I first heard about "Launchpad goes OpenSource", I sure assumed that the code was in a state that would allow me to set up a local instance by myself :) I guess that is more of a long-term goal then. I would suggest to start with removing all trademark-infringing parts first. Once the legal barrier has been lowered, it's more likely that others will tackle the technical issues... I honestly admit that I did not read all the announcements and documentation in detail, but when I first heard about “Launchpad goes OpenSource”, I sure assumed that the code was in a state that would allow me to set up a local instance by myself :)

I guess that is more of a long-term goal then. I would suggest to start with removing all trademark-infringing parts first. Once the legal barrier has been lowered, it’s more likely that others will tackle the technical issues…

]]> By: Florian Effenberger http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/2009/10/29/self-hosting-launchpad-dream-on/comment-page-1/#comment-250277 Florian Effenberger Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:56:55 +0000 http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/?p=691#comment-250277 Hi Karl, sure, you are right, but when I heard that Canonical will open source LaunchPad, for sure I thought it will be in a state usable for own installation, and it seems I'm not the only one having this feeling. ;-) However, as you said, now it's clear and I was quite impress by the speed my inquiry on the mailing list has been answered. So, from my side, all is well, and now that you added the note to the website, it's also clear for the rest. :-) Thanks again, Florian Hi Karl,

sure, you are right, but when I heard that Canonical will open source LaunchPad, for sure I thought it will be in a state usable for own installation, and it seems I’m not the only one having this feeling. ;-)

However, as you said, now it’s clear and I was quite impress by the speed my inquiry on the mailing list has been answered. So, from my side, all is well, and now that you added the note to the website, it’s also clear for the rest. :-)

Thanks again,
Florian

]]> By: Karl Fogel http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/2009/10/29/self-hosting-launchpad-dream-on/comment-page-1/#comment-250246 Karl Fogel Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:22:42 +0000 http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/?p=691#comment-250246 It's interesting -- nothing in the blog post or any of the other announcements says (or even implies) that we're aiming for self-hosting, but on the other hand, given that so many open source projects *do* measure their success by number of installations, it's not unreasonable that you would assume we would too. If I could do it over, I'd put something in the blog post stating explicitly that that wasn't our goal... But water under the bridge now. I'm glad it's clarified; thanks for raising it. Best, -Karl It’s interesting — nothing in the blog post or any of the other announcements says (or even implies) that we’re aiming for self-hosting, but on the other hand, given that so many open source projects *do* measure their success by number of installations, it’s not unreasonable that you would assume we would too. If I could do it over, I’d put something in the blog post stating explicitly that that wasn’t our goal… But water under the bridge now. I’m glad it’s clarified; thanks for raising it.

Best,
-Karl

]]> By: Florian Effenberger http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/2009/10/29/self-hosting-launchpad-dream-on/comment-page-1/#comment-250235 Florian Effenberger Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:11:22 +0000 http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/?p=691#comment-250235 Hello Karl, thanks for replying on the blog directly. Wanted to send you the link, but you have been faster. ;-) I think the problem is, that the expectations set by the press release and blog entry have been different from what was planned. I've talked to some other authors and LaunchPad-interested users, and I'm not alone with my feeling. Some also criticized that even just the rebranding necessary to avoid trademark violations caused too much work. They also had the impression that LaunchPad was to be released for self-hosting, like I was. You're right that the posting in the mailing list makes it more clear, but not everyone is subscribed to the lists and has to rely on the information posted on the mentioned other sources - like I did. ;-) However, it's great that everyone on the mailing list reacted so fast when I asked my questions, and that the replies made it clear. I also appreciate that you added a note to the LaunchPad wiki on the primary goals - this surely will help a lot. So, thanks again! I'm still sure that open sourcing LaunchPad was the right decision, even if for our concrete plan is not suitable. Florian Hello Karl,

thanks for replying on the blog directly. Wanted to send you the link, but you have been faster. ;-)

I think the problem is, that the expectations set by the press release and blog entry have been different from what was planned. I’ve talked to some other authors and LaunchPad-interested users, and I’m not alone with my feeling. Some also criticized that even just the rebranding necessary to avoid trademark violations caused too much work. They also had the impression that LaunchPad was to be released for self-hosting, like I was.

You’re right that the posting in the mailing list makes it more clear, but not everyone is subscribed to the lists and has to rely on the information posted on the mentioned other sources – like I did. ;-)

However, it’s great that everyone on the mailing list reacted so fast when I asked my questions, and that the replies made it clear. I also appreciate that you added a note to the LaunchPad wiki on the primary goals – this surely will help a lot.

So, thanks again! I’m still sure that open sourcing LaunchPad was the right decision, even if for our concrete plan is not suitable.

Florian

]]> By: Karl Fogel http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/2009/10/29/self-hosting-launchpad-dream-on/comment-page-1/#comment-250231 Karl Fogel Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:35:35 +0000 http://sandro.groganz.com/weblog/?p=691#comment-250231 Sorry you were surprised. But our announcement at the time of open-sourcing clearly stated that our goal was to improve the Launchpad service we host (see https://lists.launchpad.net/launchpad-users/msg05118.html). "Proper" release management depends on the goals of the entity doing the management; the same is true for Ubuntu, for which we take entirely different release management approach, because in that case we are trying to maximize the number of installations. The release management we do for Launchpad works for our purposes (regular deployment at Launchpad.net); we can't take on the burden of doing QA and release management for others' purposes as well. Anyone else is free to take on that burden, but as you discovered, it's quite large. Now you know why we don't do it :-). The fact that the code didn't compile for you when you tried it is problematic from our point of view too -- we do want it to be easy to hack on, so people can develop and test patches. Trunk is normally buildable, at least in my experience; I hope the problems you encountered got fixed. Good luck with FusionForge! Best, -Karl Fogel Sorry you were surprised. But our announcement at the time of open-sourcing clearly stated that our goal was to improve the Launchpad service we host (see https://lists.launchpad.net/launchpad-users/msg05118.html).

“Proper” release management depends on the goals of the entity doing the management; the same is true for Ubuntu, for which we take entirely different release management approach, because in that case we are trying to maximize the number of installations. The release management we do for Launchpad works for our purposes (regular deployment at Launchpad.net); we can’t take on the burden of doing QA and release management for others’ purposes as well.

Anyone else is free to take on that burden, but as you discovered, it’s quite large. Now you know why we don’t do it :-) .

The fact that the code didn’t compile for you when you tried it is problematic from our point of view too — we do want it to be easy to hack on, so people can develop and test patches. Trunk is normally buildable, at least in my experience; I hope the problems you encountered got fixed.

Good luck with FusionForge!

Best,
-Karl Fogel

]]>