On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 08:15 +0200, Adrien Prost-Boucle wrote: > On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 07:19 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote: > > On 21/07/15 05:18, Nils Pipenbrinck wrote: > > > On 07/21/2015 04:53 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote: > > > > > > > I am not very thrilled by moving from sf to github, because ghdl > > > > has > > > > already moved twice in the past. Too many moves may lost users > > > > and > > > > contributors. > > > > > > The problem is that sf.net recently starts to wrap an installer > > > around > > > binaries that bundles open-source projects with crapware. > > > > Ok, I haven't realized that every project could be affected. > > As far as I know they only do that on projects/accounts they have taken > ownership of after long inactivity.
OK, that gives us time to decide instead of making a knee-jerk reaction. I am no fan of crapware and if it starts to infect active projects I would be in favour of a transition at that time - IF - Tristan is also convinced and in full agreement. This current SourceForge outage is a separate issue, and while it's unfortunate, in my opinion it is distinctly out of character; I wouldn't rush to say it's a sign of things to come. If it spawns some more openness in SF and a re-engineering for better availability, things aren't all bad. http://sourceforge.net/blog/sourceforge-infrastructure-and-service-restoration/ I'm not happy about it but clearly, neither are they. Github users can be as smug as they want until it happens to them. But, that said : > The ideal solution would be one that could be fully replicated/mirrored > regularly, like dayly, to an independant location that can be used as > fallback. I think it's important to have a reliable fallback location Is it worth formalising Adam's clone of the repo as a second-source? I see he can "git clone" successfully from the hg repository on SF (when it's up!) but does the reverse work safely and reliability - either "git update" or "hg update" from a Github repo to the hg one on SF? Or should we make a clean switch to Github? There is cost and opportunity loss to consider if we make a complete move from SF - for example I didn't realise that the pointers at https://www.openhub.net/p/ghdl still referred to Gna.org until late last year, and due to availability problems with openhub's system, even after I corrected that, it took a couple of months before the change propagated correctly. And still, elsewhere, you see people using 0.29 or earlier, who are pleasantly surprised to find there's a newer version. So awareness of ghdl-updates on SF is still not complete, and judging by the download statistics, still on the increase. That's not to say we shouldn't jump to github : just to say, let's talk it through - and as long as we stay at SF, let's keep an eye on the crapware situation. -- Brian _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
