Justin Heyes-Jones wrote: > The advantages are the obvious reliablity (both uptime and speed) of > google infrastructure. (I've noticed a lot of downtime and slowness on > sourceforge.) The bug (or issue) tracking is very simple, very > visible, and easy to use.
Sourceforge has sometimes problems, but most of the time it works. But I don't care, where the repository is, and you may be right that Google is more reliable. > Downsides are that there is no release mechanism for easy download. > Casual users may be put off by having to use subversion to get a > release. Yet theres nothing stopping us putting an automatically > zipped up release in the subversion database which can then be linked > to in their web site. I don't like the idea of storing release packages in SVN. But we could still use the Sourceforge file release system (with the worldwide mirrors it should be reliable) and the SVN-repository of Google. So if there are more people who thinks it is a good idea to move to Google, feel free to commit all files to the Google repository, then delete all files from the repository at Sourceforge and add a new readme file, that says that the current repository is at Google now. The Google system looks very spartanic (in contrast to Sourceforge, which looks very bloated), maybe we should suggest to Google to add a file release system? -- Frank Buss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de _______________________________________________ application-builder mailing list application-builder@lispniks.com http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/application-builder
