Motivated people have recently formed the VIT (visual identity team). I believe they tend to work with rails. And I think rubyforge is on their roadmap. Are these statements exact?
So, when ruby-lang is done, when ruby-doc is done and when time comes to tackle rubyforge visual identity with rails help, how will they painlessly fullfill that work without a previously well prepared rails-based replacement for GForge?
Then my question is, isn't there a need for a rails-based gforge like framework?
> Then my question is, isn't there a need for a rails-based gforge like > framework?
> What do you all think about this? > > Regards, > Lionel Thiry
I am one of those that would like an "in ruby" version of almost anything, but I think gforge and his cousins (savane, berlios and so on) are quite complex projects, and I think rewriting them in ruby won't grant you any advantage, and will take a lot of time. And you have to consider that redesigning a web page may require just a little php and css hacking, wich is not necessarily a huge work.
>> Then my question is, isn't there a need for a rails-based gforge like >> framework?
> > What do you all think about this?
> > Regards, > > Lionel Thiry
> I am one of those that would like an "in ruby" version of almost > anything, but I think gforge and his cousins (savane, berlios and so on) > are quite complex projects, and I think rewriting them in ruby won't > grant you any advantage, and will take a lot of time. > And you have to consider that redesigning a web page may require just a > little php and css hacking, wich is not necessarily a huge work.
One of the main claim of rails folks is that "With rails, it is (up to) 10 times faster to develop a web application". And I suppose it is still so when hacking a rails app.
Then I believe that developing a GForge like rails application wouldn't be a so huge work than the original framework was with PHP, and we would benefit of higher flexibility and reliability.
This is what I believe. But I was asking for opinions. Does Gabriel Renzi's opinion resume everybody else's opinion?
> Motivated people have recently formed the VIT (visual identity team). I believe > they tend to work with rails. And I think rubyforge is on their roadmap. Are > these statements exact?
> So, when ruby-lang is done, when ruby-doc is done and when time comes to tackle > rubyforge visual identity with rails help, how will they painlessly fullfill > that work without a previously well prepared rails-based replacement for
GForge?
I'm on the vit-discuss mailing list, and this is the first I've heard of any plans to do anything with rubyforge. But who knows? People get ambitious. The ruby-doc redesign is unrelated to the VIT efforts. And while some number of people working on the ruby-lang.org redesign may use Rails for one thing or another, I'm am unaware of it playing any special role in the redesign project. The mockups are posted to a blog running Hobbix. The discussion happens on a mailing list written on Python.
About the only connection to Rails is that one of the mockups reminds me of the Rails home page.
> Then my question is, isn't there a need for a rails-based gforge like
framework?
There may be a need for a *Ruby* version of gforge. Maybe. Whether it gets built using Rails, Nitro, Wee, or something else is another matter altogether.
> One of the main claim of rails folks is that "With rails, it is (up > to) 10 times faster to develop a web application". And I suppose it is > still so when hacking a rails app.
I don't think of GForge as primarily a webapp, even though the frontend uses the web. There are a lot of complex details on the server side that would have to be redone for very little gain.
|
