Hey all. I've just taken over as admin for this project.

I was involved with rawr pretty much from its inception, though as of late I have been looking after my own fork, Roir.

Logan asked if I'd be interested in caring for Rawr, and I agreed.

So here's the thing:

I was not very happy when the Rawr project moved to Kenai.

I much prefered using Google Groups for all communication, and much prefer gitosis, and now github, as the repo management tool.

The rawr project on Kenai has several mailing lists, none of which seem to get any real human use, and a forum tool with four topics.

Overall I find the Kenai UI both ugly and painful to use, and were I the only person involved with rawr I would drop it in a New York minute.

I would use a Google Group for all human messages, with hooks from GItHub for commits. I'd proably use Pivotal Tracker for issue tracking, though the issue feature on Github may be usable. In either case there would be hooks for E-mail notification.

(I hate forums, for most anything. I much prefer E-mail tools that offer a Web interface if desired. Having to go to a Web page to reply to something is just looney, when I could be handling things from my E-mail client.)

However, before I go off all King Tut and shake everything around, I would like to know what others think.

Am I missing something? Are there compelling features of Kenai? Are there better offerings than github, Pivotal Tracker, et al?

Is JIRA worth sticking with? There's the advantage of not having to migrate 24 tickets and assignees. If JIRA were the only Kenai item used for Rawr, would it still be a compelling choice? It's not really that many issues to enter into some other tool.

Thanks,

James

Pivotal Tracker project is at http://www.pivotaltracker.com/projects/74695

I've grabbed a CSV file of issues, and I'll likely write a Ruby thing to import them into PT.