Difference between revisions of "User:Usul/DevelopmentNG"

From Navit's Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 7: Line 7:
 
**sf.net is currently exactly the opposite (people expect we use the internal bugtracker, mailinglist, ... there, even if we currently use only the SVN)
 
**sf.net is currently exactly the opposite (people expect we use the internal bugtracker, mailinglist, ... there, even if we currently use only the SVN)
 
*but portals enable the components to work closely together
 
*but portals enable the components to work closely together
 +
*Components should offer PostgreSQL backend, SSO via custom OpenID (our wiki)
  
 
==VCS==
 
==VCS==

Revision as of 07:58, 6 June 2013

Navit dev process.svg

general

If you look at user:Usul/Disburden cp15, it's recommend to modularize our dev workflow as well.

  • be indipendend from providers ->self hosted
  • be able to replace single components without needing to switch everything -> single components
    • sf.net is currently exactly the opposite (people expect we use the internal bugtracker, mailinglist, ... there, even if we currently use only the SVN)
  • but portals enable the components to work closely together
  • Components should offer PostgreSQL backend, SSO via custom OpenID (our wiki)

VCS

  • use a DVCS -> offline commits, support staging, allow sharing unstable code
  • GIT very popular, widely supported
  • git-flow enables easy seperation into 5 streams (stable, dev, feature, hotfix)

build server

Currently we use our own solution http://download.navit-project.org

  • package building
  • no support for multiple dev flows
  • no triggering for post actions (tests, benchmarking, ...)
    • ctest

translating

  • is it only on translating, or does I18n cover here further resources?
  • Translatewiki has already some OSM context

code review

  • normalize code quality before merging to mainline
  • minimize load for the reviewer (make it confortable, fast communication, ...)

issue tracking

  • our trac is spammend and unamanage
  • trac itself isn't very intuitive, focused
    • roadmap planing isn't well embedded