[Nitro] The future of Nitro, Og and Raw

[chris]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:37 PM, trans <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> I'm still listening. After George went south on the project I haven't
> had any real motivation to continue. But it's a real shame
> considering. I think it would be great for you to pick up the torch
> and run with it.
>

We'll see what happens but I'm going to try.


>
> On Oct 23, 11:10 am, chris <prp... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not sure who all is still listening but I have something to say.
> >
> >   As Dan North said a while back.  Nitro is quite feature full and could
> > really use some time to settle in with some bug fixes and a really solid
> > release.  I may end up taking a stab at this.  Once I got some fixes into
> > the Nitro and Raw dependancies and require statements.  A simple "nitro
> > hello;cd hello;nitro" works out of the box.  I also converted the entire
> > projects to "newgem" projects ( no offense intended ).
>
> If it works for you, that's fine. Since I stopped working on Nitro I
> recrafted my whole build suite anyway.
>
> But how does newgem help except to build a gem?
>

It's not just the gem build it has direct rake tasks to upload a built gem
directly to rubyforge and much more.  Rake is a tool I can't live without.
I'm really surprised it wasn't used in the darcs repo source.


>
> >  The rake build tasks
> > in there are excellent and "rake local_deploy" works perfectly.  I have
> not
> > touched Og, it seems to be pretty solid already.  (side note: I think Og
> > could stand on it's own two feet as well but if you want me to hold onto
> it
> > for a while I will)
>
> I separated Og into it's own project. See http://ogden.rubyforge.org.
> There is a git repo. It is pretty much exactly what is in the current
> Nitro repo. I figured splitting Og off on it's own was the first thing
> to do in working toward a new stable release. Unfortunately the tests
> were converted to RSpec just before all that (not by me), and they do
> not fully pass and I have not been able to track down all the issues --
> I wish we had the old unit tests instead.
>

As I'm poking around I'll see what I can do about finding those tests along
the way.


>
> The main plans I had for the future of Og were to make "enchanting"
> explicit, and remove as much dynamic code injection as possible (there
> is a lot of that in this lib). But a new solid release before all
> that, at this point, would probably be best to help get a little fire
> going under it.
>

Hopefully my time investment in nitro will help out the og movement as
well.  I still think it outshines activerecord by leaps and bounds.


>
> > CHANGELOG:
> >
> > Fixed Nitro and Raw gemspec dependancies
> > Fixed missing "require 'raw/controller'" in raw.rb
> > Replaced lib/facets.rb with a gemspec dependancy
> > Converted Nitro to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and
> > rubyforge integration
> > Converted Raw to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and
> > rubyforge integration
> >
> > TODO:
> >
> > I think I found some bugs in the admin part, which in my opinion is key
> to
> > getting a new user's feet wet with nitro and og.  I'd like to fix those.
> > Massive build up of examples in the rdocs
> > Move good examples to the prototype site produced by "nitro project_name"
> > Include more details in the actual prototype site code and startup files
> > like app.rb and config/debug.rb
> > I do not plan to move away from using the current unit testing.  However
> I
> > will create new tests using rspec and rbehave.  They are not mutually
> > exclusive
>
> Ultimately it's your call, but I'd prefer not going the rspec and
> rbehave route. There are much more important things to do. If you want
> to move toward BDD, using minitest's mini/spec (now included in Ruby
> 1.9, btw) or Shoulda would be a much easier, more tempered step in
> that direction.
>

Going the rspec and rbehave route is something which I have proven to myself
helps me write really solid code.  Not necessary, just what helps me work
better.  I will definitely look into mini and shoulda, thanks for the
suggestions.


> > Get "rake docs" working
> > Get "rake website_generate" working
> >
> >   With your permission, Trans and George I'm talking to you, I'll put
> some
> > more effort into this and see what I can come up with.  None of my
> changes
> > will mess with the api, my entire goal is stability and usability.  After
> > presenting my initial work to you guys, we can decide where you want to
> go
> > from there.
>
> That's more than considerate. Since the project has been down for the
> count, I say, feel free to take her where you want. As you can tell
> from my reply I'm still interested in seeing this project succeed and
> am happy to help where as I can.


Well, thank you for your support and I'll keep updating the mailing list as
I go along.  I'll keep my requests for major effort on your part to an
minimum.  However getting access to rubyforge may be necessary in the next
few weeks.


>
> >   Before I forget, Robert Mela, if your out there.  I'd love to get a
> hold
> > of your cheatsheets for inclusion in the actual rdocs.  Looks like your
> site
> > has been reclaimed by the domain goblins.
>
> T.
> _______________________________________________
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/nitro-general/attachments/20081023/292b3e3f/attachment.html>