|
How should we get the word out about the OSQA project? I spent the past two hours investigating StackOverflow and StackExchange clones. I almost didn't find OSQA, as I describe a bit in this thread. You should keep in mind that it is very difficult for people to know to use OSQA, or that this option even exists. This person investigated a handful of stackoverflow clones, evaluated the health of the project and how actively maintained it was, found example sites, and didn't even figure out that OSQA is a more healthy fork of CNprog, nor did he realize that it even existed: link. And this guy was trying to be very comprehensive! I dug a little deeper and posted a comment, but you should know that people (myself included) generally don't look at github forks if the main branch has had commits in the past month (which CNprog has). If people like the fellow in the link above don't know about OSQA, how can we expect other people to find out about it? |
|
I, too, barely found OSQA. It was mentioned in some podcast I was listening to.
2
I wrote an email to Patrick Lightbody (who currently owns the domains OpenQA.net and OpenQA.org) to see if he'd consider letting us use them. He and I have both been active in the Java world for many years, so maybe he'll be open to the idea.
(02 May '10, 10:00)
rickross ♦♦
1
I agree that git allows more people to more easily contribute. The difficulty is that the core developers prefer SVN, so they migrated from git to SVN.
(04 May '10, 21:05)
Joseph
|
|
OSQA seems to have a nice homepage. I think you guys should compile these items ASAP in order to effectively promote OSQA
These are really good suggestions, Sim. Thanks! We've just begun to use our wiki to start creating documentation and other support resources. Would you be interested in helping write some of this?
(17 Apr '10, 09:06)
rickross ♦♦
|
|
One month after your post: I agree with you and I really think that in this case the git model may be poisoning the project. I think that in this stage all we want is to have one main branch where several people can commit their changes, one release branch and some experimental branches - all o these could work SVN. I think that git complexity could stop others from adopting the platform - I had a similar experience with mercurial and I got back to subversion. I agree with sorin that the git model is rather more a barrier than a booster. Although git has some advantages, it tends to encourage forking and isolation rather than team effort. I would be delighted to lose git.
(07 Mar '10, 12:34)
rickross ♦♦
3
What the heck are you people talking about? Git is leaps and bounds easier to work with. You can create identical setup to the svn system. Advantage is that if you use something like GitHub you allow forking and contributing without worrying about generating patches and such.
(02 May '10, 00:50)
drozzy
I agree with you that it should NOT be a fork of some other project on github. But I Do think that it warrants it's own GitHub project entry. This is to enable other contributers forking of OSQA. I don't really care for CNprog.
(02 May '10, 01:14)
drozzy
I LOVE mercurial HG but I agree with your statement. New tech could be off putting for some programmers.
(02 May '10, 09:44)
Russell Ball...
2
Do I understand correctly: you went from git to svn?!? oO
Well, that won't prevent me from
(02 May '10, 10:44)
Olivier
|
|
I found osQA on a meta.stackoverflow.com question about StackExchange's plan to close its source. I would have never known about it had I not read that question... I think osQA is a great name, but I think we should write out it's name when promoting: Open Source Question and Answer (osQA) web application. |
