Re: [Opensim-dev] On Revisions, tags and branches
Great summary and a really useful addition to build. ++ -tommi ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] On Revisions, tags and branches
Thanks for this clarification Sean. I am learning more all the time about revisions/trunks better. -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Sean Dague Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:30 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] On Revisions, tags and branches Stefan Andersson wrote: Now on to tags - trunk, branches and tags are really all one thing: paths. The only real difference is by convention: there is a certain path called /trunk that serves a certain purpose, nemaly to be the focal point for developers. There is a certain name used for paths other than trunk, and that is branches. Some branches by convention aren't meant to be modified, but serve as snapshots of a point in time - they are called tags. But to the server, they are all revisions along differerent link paths. There is really nothing stopping you from committing to a tag - it's just the svn client will be reluctant to do so, as it's aware of the convention. Keep this in mind, when referring to a 'revision' - it might be on a totally different path, so be sure to mention what path you're really talking about. specifying trunk, between revision 1343 and 1780 or 0.6.2 post-fixes, between revision 1764 and 2006 again lets you compare revision numbers to indicate advancement of state. So, don't tell people to check a certain revision out, unless you mean _exactly_ that version - tell them the logical path to it instead. Related to this, I just pulled together a script that will build a source release (both .zip and .tar.gz) for all tags in the repository, and dump them at http://dist.opensimulator.org. This is now running under cron hourly, so will pick up a new tag release pretty quickly. This is *not* picking up the fix branches, mostly because that opens the question of which version of fixes are being used. However, given that this means source releases magically appear shortly after tags, I'd recommend just tagging off 0.6.4.1-release, 0.6.4.2-release, etc when fixes go in that should release to the world. -Sean -- Sean Dague / Neas Bade sda...@gmail.com http://dague.net ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
[Opensim-dev] God tools and opensim web interface
When I enter god mode, And go into god tools in the admin menu, change region name or basicly nothing works. Is their a module to fix that? Also, does anyone know a free webhost that will host the opensim web interface wiredux with curl, mysql connections and php? Thanks! ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] God tools and opensim web interface
The god tools are not implemented. I don't consider it likely that they would be, since some things they would modify are set in .ini or .xml files in opensim, which can't be changed from the viewer. Melanie Jason Fisher wrote: When I enter god mode, And go into god tools in the admin menu, change region name or basicly nothing works. Is their a module to fix that? Also, does anyone know a free webhost that will host the opensim web interface wiredux with curl, mysql connections and php? Thanks! ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] God tools and opensim web interface
It's at least unlikely that the God functionality you're looking for is implemented; but if it is, you'd probably need to Request Admin Status from the Advanced menu on the client first, and have that functionality fully supported on the server side first before any of this has any hope of success. The hosting problem you are trying to solve is typically addressed by hosting the web interface and SQL backend on the same physical server UGAIM, and letting the SQL instance be accessed via localhost. Hope this helps! Cheers James On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Jason Fisher bikc...@gmail.com wrote: When I enter god mode, And go into god tools in the admin menu, change region name or basicly nothing works. Is their a module to fix that? Also, does anyone know a free webhost that will host the opensim web interface wiredux with curl, mysql connections and php? Thanks! ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev -- === http://osgrid.org http://del.icio.us/SPQR http://twitter.com/jstallings2 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49 ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] God tools and opensim web interface
God tools are mostly for Secondlife and the Linden infrastructure, opensim does not use them currently, except for very limited set of functions, but none of the god tools work as they do on the linden grid, you will need to edit your xml configurations and restart your simulator, also, OpenSim Web Interface requires you run the database on the same table as the Grid is running on, so chances are unless you can run the entire grid on this free service also your going to be out of luck with free services. Neb On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Jason Fisher bikc...@gmail.com wrote: When I enter god mode, And go into god tools in the admin menu, change region name or basicly nothing works. Is their a module to fix that? Also, does anyone know a free webhost that will host the opensim web interface wiredux with curl, mysql connections and php? Thanks! ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev -- Nebadon Izumi @ http://osgrid.org ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] On Revisions, tags and branches
However, given that this means source releases magically appear shortly after tags, I'd recommend just tagging off 0.6.4.1-release, 0.6.4.2-release, etc when fixes go in that should release to the world. Good call, Sean; I think that should be how we do it. At least, we could tag it once a week or every other week or so provided there's been any new fixes to it. Or if there's been critical fixes to it. And again, I invite the whole community to participate in the release cycle handling - if done right, I believe it can be a powerful tool indeed. /Stefan ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] On Revisions, tags and branches
Perhaps it might be a good idea to have a list of known suspects who can volunteer to test on a selection of platform combinations, and check a box next to that configuration when it has been tested against a specific release? Then perhaps put mantis reports specific to a certain combination (linked to the mantis drop boxes?) next to selected configurations so that folks know what potential issues are out there that they might face? (I'll happily volunteer to test on Windows Server 2008 64bit, SQL 2008). Having discovered http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Testing perhaps we can have a thumbs up / down based on this or an enhanced version of this that caters for more variation. For a good test, I would recommend that grid testing involves a minimum 4 regions (so you can test crossing a corner and see how well it works), and a minimum of two region servers - I have a test plan for my own grid testing, but it's currently all in my head and needs documenting. If anyone has their own test plans perhaps we can share and put up on the wiki to get some really effective testing going. I say all this with some hesitation since I don't know what other folks do, or whether something like this exists that I've not yet encountered :) It feels like a release every two weeks would keep the majority of folks who want the new shiny stuff happy, while also hopefully enabling the devs to get some work done. Hard and fast rule this should never be though, if a big new feature goes in that needs more time, let's give it time, etc. Keep the conversation going - this is all good stuff! Thanks so much Stefan for coordinating this. Chris From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Stefan Andersson Sent: 05 April 2009 16:28 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] On Revisions, tags and branches However, given that this means source releases magically appear shortly after tags, I'd recommend just tagging off 0.6.4.1-release, 0.6.4.2-release, etc when fixes go in that should release to the world. Good call, Sean; I think that should be how we do it. At least, we could tag it once a week or every other week or so provided there's been any new fixes to it. Or if there's been critical fixes to it. And again, I invite the whole community to participate in the release cycle handling - if done right, I believe it can be a powerful tool indeed. /Stefan No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.39/2038 - Release Date: 04/04/09 16:53:00 ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful
- Forwarded message from Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com - From: Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:44:08 -0700 To: linux-eliti...@zgp.org Subject: Re: [linux-elitists] [Opensim-dev] Mono considered harmful User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 Quoting Eugen Leitl (eu...@leitl.org): IANAL, does below explanation by Adam hold water? You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it's rubbish on two separate grounds. Yes, C# is an ECMA standard. However: (1) It doesn't follow that ECMA International has any power to forbid patent holders from suing anyone over anything, let alone patent infringement. I mean, think about it: Does Adam think ECMA International is Microsoft Corporation's daddy? That it owns 51% of the issued and outstanding common stock? At worst, it might be possible for ECMA International to be very deeply disappointed in Microsoft's behaviour at some future point, decertify particular things, and otherwise carry out mild actions that _are_ within its power. More important: (2) In any event, ECMA International does not even _profess_ to disapprove of suing patent infringers. It merely has a Code of Conduct in Patent Matters (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm), setting ECMA policy that the group will approve standards only if it has written assurances from applicant that applicable patents will be licensed on a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis. (That term of art is typically referred to as RAND terms.) Has Adam Frisby completely missed the last decade of standards warfare? The proprietary camp has repeatedly attempted to get the World Wide Web Consortium to start accepting RAND patent licensing, instead of requiring that applicants certify that covering patents will be _royalty-free_. This arm-twisting failed, because of diligent focussing of attention from open source people. W3C has stuck to its guns and insistend on royalty-free patent licensing. To spell it out: Reasonable means obligatory patent royalty payments. Which means no open source implementations of those standards. And that is one reason why ECMA standards can be (and often are) issued on terms hostile to open source, whereas W3C standards are reliable and open-source-friendly. Sheesh. -- Cheers, HÃggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers Rick MoenTry to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; r...@linuxmafia.com Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is McQ! (4x80) Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. ___ linux-elitists mailing list linux-eliti...@zgp.org http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful
In other words, Why don't you take this to the Mono development e-mail list. Because i'm sure that they have a lot more experience dealing with people who cherry pick the Microsoft/Mono thing.OpenSimulator is in .NET/Mono.That's the way it is. If you want to rewrite it in your favorite language, you're welcome to do so. The license allows you do to that. This isn't about being right or wrong, this is about this line of conversation being completely irrelevant. Best Regards Teravus On 4/5/09, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: - Forwarded message from Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com - From: Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:44:08 -0700 To: linux-eliti...@zgp.org Subject: Re: [linux-elitists] [Opensim-dev] Mono considered harmful User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 Quoting Eugen Leitl (eu...@leitl.org): IANAL, does below explanation by Adam hold water? You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it's rubbish on two separate grounds. Yes, C# is an ECMA standard. However: (1) It doesn't follow that ECMA International has any power to forbid patent holders from suing anyone over anything, let alone patent infringement. I mean, think about it: Does Adam think ECMA International is Microsoft Corporation's daddy? That it owns 51% of the issued and outstanding common stock? At worst, it might be possible for ECMA International to be very deeply disappointed in Microsoft's behaviour at some future point, decertify particular things, and otherwise carry out mild actions that _are_ within its power. More important: (2) In any event, ECMA International does not even _profess_ to disapprove of suing patent infringers. It merely has a Code of Conduct in Patent Matters (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm), setting ECMA policy that the group will approve standards only if it has written assurances from applicant that applicable patents will be licensed on a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis. (That term of art is typically referred to as RAND terms.) Has Adam Frisby completely missed the last decade of standards warfare? The proprietary camp has repeatedly attempted to get the World Wide Web Consortium to start accepting RAND patent licensing, instead of requiring that applicants certify that covering patents will be _royalty-free_. This arm-twisting failed, because of diligent focussing of attention from open source people. W3C has stuck to its guns and insistend on royalty-free patent licensing. To spell it out: Reasonable means obligatory patent royalty payments. Which means no open source implementations of those standards. And that is one reason why ECMA standards can be (and often are) issued on terms hostile to open source, whereas W3C standards are reliable and open-source-friendly. Sheesh. -- Cheers, HÃggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers Rick MoenTry to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; r...@linuxmafia.com Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is McQ! (4x80) Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. ___ linux-elitists mailing list linux-eliti...@zgp.org http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful
It's also worth noting that MS released a somewhat FOSS (I'm a little unsure which of their licenses they used and whether it's an OSI one or not) implementation of .NET for Linux called 'Rotor'. Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Frisby, Adam Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2009 8:59 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful Yeah, I did miss reasonable fees. However, it is widely believed that the Novell/MS pact disclaims these. I would highly suggest bringing this one over to the Mono mailing list, they have a lot more experience dealing with these claims. Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2009 11:34 AM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful - Forwarded message from Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com - From: Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:44:08 -0700 To: linux-eliti...@zgp.org Subject: Re: [linux-elitists] [Opensim-dev] Mono considered harmful User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 Quoting Eugen Leitl (eu...@leitl.org): IANAL, does below explanation by Adam hold water? You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it's rubbish on two separate grounds. Yes, C# is an ECMA standard. However: (1) It doesn't follow that ECMA International has any power to forbid patent holders from suing anyone over anything, let alone patent infringement. I mean, think about it: Does Adam think ECMA International is Microsoft Corporation's daddy? That it owns 51% of the issued and outstanding common stock? At worst, it might be possible for ECMA International to be very deeply disappointed in Microsoft's behaviour at some future point, decertify particular things, and otherwise carry out mild actions that _are_ within its power. More important: (2) In any event, ECMA International does not even _profess_ to disapprove of suing patent infringers. It merely has a Code of Conduct in Patent Matters (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm), setting ECMA policy that the group will approve standards only if it has written assurances from applicant that applicable patents will be licensed on a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis. (That term of art is typically referred to as RAND terms.) Has Adam Frisby completely missed the last decade of standards warfare? The proprietary camp has repeatedly attempted to get the World Wide Web Consortium to start accepting RAND patent licensing, instead of requiring that applicants certify that covering patents will be _royalty-free_. This arm-twisting failed, because of diligent focussing of attention from open source people. W3C has stuck to its guns and insistend on royalty-free patent licensing. To spell it out: Reasonable means obligatory patent royalty payments. Which means no open source implementations of those standards. And that is one reason why ECMA standards can be (and often are) issued on terms hostile to open source, whereas W3C standards are reliable and open-source-friendly. Sheesh. -- Cheers, HÃggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers Rick MoenTry to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; r...@linuxmafia.com Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is McQ! (4x80) Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. ___ linux-elitists mailing list linux-eliti...@zgp.org http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
