Retour d'expérience sur le choix d'une forge logicielle / Choosing a software forge

Transcription

1 Retour d'expérience sur le choix d'une forge logicielle / Choosing a software forge joseph.roumier@cetic.be twitter/identi.ca: jrcetic etienne.charlier@cetic.be rmll /07/2010

2 CETIC, & CELLaVI CETIC - Centre of Excellence in Information and Communication Technologies Applied research & Technology transfer Software engineering, service oriented technologies and embedded systems. PONTE - Efficient [P]atient Recruitment for Inn[O]vative Cli[N]ical [T]rials of [E]xisting Drugs to other Indications WP4 Leader Data Representation & Organisation. CELLaVI - Center of Expertise for Open Source use in Industrial Applications Foster OSS adoption in the Walloon region By software users (find software) and editors (develop software)

3 Présentation des forges logicielles, de leurs principales fonctionnalités et instances, et d'ordres de grandeur du domaine.

4 Software Forges Basics Collaboration tool for software development Basic Features Code hosting Mailing lists and/or forums -> communication Wiki -> documentation Web and file hosting -> downloads, comm. bug tracking -> development & feedback Software Forge & Forge Instance Famous hosting platforms Sourceforge( ), GitHub( ), Alioth(889), etc. Many free software being developed on forges: Gnome, Inkscape, amule, Emacs, etc.

5

6 Back to PALLaVI the CELLaVI forge Why another forge? Hosting local software projects Won't be lost in large hosting platforms Customized services Technical / Legal / Economic / Training -> customized forge

7 Some selection difficulties Name gforge/fusionforge LibreSource Savane gforge AS Collabnet SourceForge Entreprise Edition Launchpad emforge Picoforge Redmine Codeplex InDefero NovaForge Many different forges: As of ending 2008 we easily found 13! Wide range of maturity, quality Little literature even though companies/institutions have been through the process of choosing an existing OSS forges: Gforge/Fusionforge: Redmine:

8 Selection Method Identify strong exclusion criteria 13 forges -> 4 forges Generic/specific criteria Based on CELLaVI goals Define notes and weight for each forge Use an external method to strengthen the choice: QSOS method Install In a virtual machine with an install script Write down the scores for each forge Based on information from websites and test

9 Forge Identify strong exclusion criteria Déployable Licence Libre Maturité Activité Communauté Plateforme gforge Oui Oui Mature Haute PHP/MySqL LibreSource Oui Oui Jeune Haute Java Savane Oui Oui Mature Basse PHP/MySql Gforge AS Oui Non N/A N/A PHP CollabNet Oui Non N/A N/A Java Sourceforge EE Oui Non N/A N/A PHP Launchpad Non Non N/A N/A N/A emforge Oui Oui Jeune Moyenne Java PicoForge Oui Oui Jeune Basse PHP Redmine Oui Oui Jeune Haute Ruby/Rails Codeplex Non Non N/A N/A N/A Indefero Oui Oui Très Jeune Haute PHP NovaForge Oui Non Mature N/A Red: N/A not available as OSS Yellow: Savane: close to gforge and stalled development PicoForge: low activity at the community level and main contributors being involved in other projects Indefero: very (too) young

10 FusionForge/gForge - 4.8

11 LibreSource - 2.5

12 EmForge

13 Redmine - 0.8

14 Criteria(1/2) Transform CELLaVI description into criteria API Metrics Plugin development Wiki Access Control List In order to identify non-functional requirements A mix of brainstorming & forges survey Identify existing plugins & practices Visiting projects websites, search for existing surveys Ask future users about their tools What is your preferred wiki/bugtracker/code repository/list manager/etc?

15 Criteria (2/2) 38 functional Example: 2.3 Remote repository Nice to Have: Some projects might have to use an existing code repository or a repository manager the forge does not provide. 20 non-functional Example: 3.1 GNU/Linux distribution supported (Debian, Ubuntu server) Required: Chosen OS is Debian GNU/Linux or Ubuntu Server

16 Putting weights and scores on criteria Three levels 3 weights: Required (w=4): forge removed from the list if not absent Important (w=3): important Nice to have(w=1) : not required Critère \ Score 0 1 Scores from 0 to 3: 0 : absent 1 : insufficient 2 : good 3 : excellent 2 3 Indispensable(x4) Souhaitable(x3) X Accessoire(x1) score CETIC = coef crit scorecrit crit

17 CETIC method results Forges comparison Gforge-4/FusionFroge Name LibreSource-2.5 EmForge-0.28 Redmine Score CETIC

18 QSOS Method ATOS software Version A method for Qualification and Selection of Open Source Software

19 QSOS Method 1.Use existing QSOS form dedicated to forges `

20 QSOS Method 1.Use existing QSOS form dedicated to forges 2. QSOS editor Firefox plugin `

21 QSOS Method 1.Use existing QSOS form dedicated to forges 2. QSOS editor Firefox plugin ` 3. Not modified

22 QSOS Method 1.Use existing QSOS form dedicated to forges 2. QSOS editor Firefox plugin ` 4. comparison Of radar diagrams 3. Not modified

23 gforge-4.8/fusionforge

24 libresource-2.5

25 emforge-0.28

26 redmine-0.8

27 gforge-4.8/fusionforge

28 libresource-2.5

29 emforge-0.28

30 Forge Selection Process conclusion Remember best score for CETIC method: redmine-0.8 And best score with QSOS method: redmine-0.8 Easy choice!

31 pallavi.cetic.be (public forge) 10 users 6 OSS projects 70mb backup (fichiers/svn/database) Well...

32

33 Joker! (forge.cetic.be) Another redmine CETIC is more successful! forge.cetic.be (private forge) 155 users 62 projects 500MB backup (fichiers/svn/database)

34 Feedback (1/3) PALLaVI forge Small/Stable Open Source Software projects Customized services not yet implemented Hard without it to attract new projects

35 Feedback (2/3) CETIC forge Quite hard to install/configure ruby on rails + montgrel + apache + mod_proxy Stable Easy theming A lot of documentation management/filesharing: european project proposals, shared space with clients Even though wiki syntax is a not used to its full potential Competition with a plone repository Happy users Happy admin Happy clients they want their own forge at home

36 Feedback (3/3) Since installation (mid 2009): No time for migration to new versions Users groups, projects nesting would be useful Calendar, gantt, time management are not well used (or not at all) Most-wanted feature: Archive a project after its end. And being able to reload it or give it to the client Cross-forge migration, similar to: "Project: Cross-Forge Migration - Summary Cross-Forge Migration Tool is a concept for facilitating the migration process of project metadata between forge platforms. It uses SWRL rules for mapping and OWL-S standard for exporting mapping results."

37 Credits/References Full description of the forge selection process: CELLaVI Exploration du monde des forges All QSOS, oocalc files and install scripts are available on demand. Send me an . Forge picture: Barry Ennor Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic The OSS Forge Ecosystem: Today and Tomorrow Nate Oostendorp, Product Director for SourceForge at GeekNet Inc Slides: QSOS Forges template: QSOS editor Firefox plugin:

38 Thanks! Contacts: CETIC a.s.b.l. Bâtiment Éole Rue des Frères Wright, 29/3 B-6041 Charleroi (Belgique) T F