Le 21 oct. 05 à 22:50, Adam Fedor a écrit :
On 2005-10-18 18:36:23 -0600 Andrew Ruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Gna.org's hosting service has been nixed more or less by most. I
don't think that this is worth pursuing because of the overall
negative response.
I've think I've forgotten - why was gna.org nixed?
I wouldn't be so negative about GNA, they are a bit understaffed but
less than Savannah (I remember one or two days commit mails
interruption this year). However there is a minor issue, you can
reach the web site only through 'https' it seems, which means the
initial connection is slow (but not subsequent pages load).
The reason I ask is that I talked to RMS and surprisingly, he's not
opposed to us moving the repository if we really want to, although
he would prefer us going to gna.org. He does not like sourceware.org
Why he doesn't like sourceware.org ?
We should also talk about all the implications this might involve.
For instance, the current CVS archive at savannah will still be
there, so we have to inform people about that.
Yes.
Plus we can't say, 'just update from CVS' to everyone who has a
problem anymore. Most people won't have svn, even if they knew how
to do that stuff. We need to update things like the daily snapshots.
GNA provides daily snaphots of repositories automatically, may be
that can be tweaked in a way which allows us to do daily repository
part snapshots.
I wonder if we could still mirror the repository on CVS? Either at
gna or savannah. Even if it is read-only.
iirc they are tools to synchronize between cvs and svn repositories.
Otherwise SVK would be able to do it.
Quentin.
--
Quentin Mathé
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev