Re: Assessment of Allura at SourceForge
Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk>
2015-05-20 22:19:53 GMT
Trevor Daniels wrote Sunday, May 17, 2015 9:33 AM
Subject: Assessment of Allura at SourceForge
> I've now completed my assessment of Allura at SourceForge against the list of requirements supplied by Phil.
> There are some differences from GoogleCode, but these are relatively minor and can be accommodated by
small changes in our procedures. In particular the Blocking and Duplicate facilities will be different,
and the various posts in the discussion are fully threaded and so are not numbered, meaning
cross-referencing is by link rather than number. The emails sent out following additions and amendments
are not formatted as nicely as those from GoogleCode, but contain all the information. Support is by +ve
and -ve voting rather than starring. Finally, the Owner field in the transferred tickets is not
populated. The owner is identified in the text of the ticket, so the field can be manually amended after the
event in the few tickets where this matters.
> Other than that the facilities are remarkably similar, and apart from congestion the transfer of the DB is
I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the loading of Allura at SourceForge, maybe due to other
projects attempting to migrate from GoogleCode. After exporting our Issues DB on Sat evening and
modifying the Post authors to "GoogleImporter" I attempted to re-import it. During Saturday evening,
all day on Sunday, and early on Monday my attempt was rejected due to the load on the server. The import
request was finally accepted on Monday afternoon, but failed after loading about a quarter of the issues.
No details given. I initiated the import again late on Monday evening, and this had completed
successfully by early Wed morning, after running for 33 hours. So weekends are a dead loss, and altogether
it took me almost 5 days just to re-import the DB.
Furthermore, I've observed today that searches are frequently rejected with "Errno 111 Connection