This has nothing to do with the AOO downloads, it only affects apache-extras. As far as I'm aware AOO downloads have been fine for a very long time - has that changed?
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -----Original Message----- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:06 PM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: Google Code shutting down Jan 2016 On 12 March 2015 at 22:55, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > On 12/03/2015 Roger and Beth Whitcomb wrote: > >> I was involved at one point on behalf of Pivot (where we have several >> projects), and Andrea Pescetti on behalf of Open Office was also >> involved (since they have a bunch of stuff there). But things have >> gone quiet for about 2 months. There was a second prototype that >> looked pretty good (to us). But, I don't know the state of things now. >> > > It was not me personally, but the OpenOffice project as a whole. We > are now using http://sourceforge.net/projects/oooextras.mirror/files/ > in the OpenOffice trunk and it works for us (our needs are limited to > storage of some optional build dependencies; for the record, Github won't > allow that). > > http://sourceforge.net/directory/apache_extras is the link to the > latest proposal for an ASF-wide replacement. There was little interest > all times the matter was discussed on this list, so OpenOffice just > moved on and started using the SourceForge space. > I support Andrea strongly here, AOO need a decision on this, apache_extras is an essential part of our downloads, and not just "extras". Personally I think the SF solution is what we as ASF need, unless Infra prefer to host it on our own hardware, and do not have a problem with the download bandwidth. Can I please politely ask the people, who says (or others say) they are working on this theme, to come to a decision. This seems to be a matter where a single person could make the decision but we still continue discussing. > > Regards, > Andrea. >
