I am not much involved, but when I previously cloned GHDL, I cloned a Mercurial repository. I was very happy, because:
*git - sucks = hg* On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Brian Drummond <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
