On Thursday, 4. June 2009 14:58:35 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that the only way to take
> donations with sourceforge is through sourceforge's donations system? That
> could cost us a significant amount of money...
That's what I read in their docs:
--
On Thursday 04 June 2009 14:06:16 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Nextgens has suggested Google Web Apps more than once. This is a paid service
> but with a generous free quota. The free quota will become rather less
> generous on June 22nd. Hopefully we will get the release out before then, but
> we
Nextgens has suggested Google Web Apps more than once. This is a paid service
but with a generous free quota. The free quota will become rather less generous
on June 22nd. Hopefully we will get the release out before then, but we will
definitely have to pay to release 0.8. Details:
- 10GB/day
On Thursday 04 June 2009 12:36:31 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> If you really consider sf.net, someone should analyse what they
> provide. And you should clearly
> state what you need. The whole discussion is based on assumptions and stuff.
>
> Fyi: sf.net has an own donation system, but you
On Wednesday 03 June 2009 20:21:46 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should
> > perform well. If there is no dynamic code there should be no administrative
> > overhead.
>
If you really consider sf.net, someone should analyse what they
provide. And you should clearly
state what you need. The whole discussion is based on assumptions and stuff.
Fyi: sf.net has an own donation system, but you don't have to use it.
The Frost project directly
links to paypal on its
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Nextgens has suggested Google Web Apps more than once. This is a paid service
> but with a generous free quota. The free quota will become rather less
> generous on June 22nd. Hopefully we will get the release out before then, but
> we
On Thursday 04 June 2009 01:31:46 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should
> >> perform well. If there is no
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should
>> perform well. If there is no dynamic code there should be no administrative
>> overhead.
>
>
On Thursday 04 June 2009 01:31:46 Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote:
On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should
perform well. If there is no
If you really consider sf.net, someone should analyse what they
provide. And you should clearly
state what you need. The whole discussion is based on assumptions and stuff.
Fyi: sf.net has an own donation system, but you don't have to use it.
The Frost project directly
links to paypal on its
On Wednesday 03 June 2009 20:21:46 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should
perform well. If there is no dynamic code there should be no administrative
overhead.
They
On Thursday 04 June 2009 12:36:31 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
If you really consider sf.net, someone should analyse what they
provide. And you should clearly
state what you need. The whole discussion is based on assumptions and stuff.
Fyi: sf.net has an own donation system, but you don't
Nextgens has suggested Google Web Apps more than once. This is a paid service
but with a generous free quota. The free quota will become rather less generous
on June 22nd. Hopefully we will get the release out before then, but we will
definitely have to pay to release 0.8. Details:
- 10GB/day
On Thursday 04 June 2009 14:06:16 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Nextgens has suggested Google Web Apps more than once. This is a paid service
but with a generous free quota. The free quota will become rather less
generous on June 22nd. Hopefully we will get the release out before then, but
we
On Thursday, 4. June 2009 14:58:35 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that the only way to take
donations with sourceforge is through sourceforge's donations system? That
could cost us a significant amount of money...
That's what I read in their docs:
--
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
Nextgens has suggested Google Web Apps more than once. This is a paid service
but with a generous free quota. The free quota will become rather less
generous on June 22nd. Hopefully we will get the release out
On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Mantis: We could run this ourselves using php+mysql on sourceforge servers,
> but we would have to admin it ourselves. Their hosted apps service does not
> currently support importing data, so we would not be able to use that to
> host
On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should
> perform well. If there is no dynamic code there should be no administrative
> overhead.
They don't allow generating money from the webhosting, so SF can't solve
Sourceforge could solve some of these problems:
Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should perform
well. If there is no dynamic code there should be no administrative overhead.
Mantis: We could run this ourselves using php+mysql on sourceforge servers, but
we would
Sourceforge could solve some of these problems:
Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should perform
well. If there is no dynamic code there should be no administrative overhead.
Mantis: We could run this ourselves using php+mysql on sourceforge servers, but
we would
On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should
perform well. If there is no dynamic code there should be no administrative
overhead.
They don't allow generating money from the webhosting, so SF can't solve
On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Mantis: We could run this ourselves using php+mysql on sourceforge servers,
but we would have to admin it ourselves. Their hosted apps service does not
currently support importing data, so we would not be able to use that to
host our
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote:
On Wednesday, 3. June 2009 19:08:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Web hosting (of static files). Sourceforge provide this, and it should
perform well. If there is no dynamic code there should be no administrative
overhead.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Florent Daigniere
wrote:
> Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>> Having said that, we might need somewhere to put mantis, if we decide to
>>> keep it (although everyone else seems to want to get rid of it). We
On Tuesday, 2. June 2009 13:53:37 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> I have had some very bad experience with SF's servers around year 2001.
> It was slow and buggy. Is that fixed now?
They did some nice updates - I didn't have bad experiences with it for years,
now.
- Arne
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
On Tuesday 02 June 2009 14:27:10 Florent Daigniere wrote:
> Daniel Cheng wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Florent Daigniere
> > wrote:
> >> Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Having said that, we might need somewhere to put
Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Florent Daigniere
> wrote:
>> Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>>> On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Having said that, we might need somewhere to put mantis, if we decide to
keep it (although everyone else seems to
Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> Having said that, we might need somewhere to put mantis, if we decide to
>> keep it (although everyone else seems to want to get rid of it). We don't
>> have any other need for php afaik, although we need
On Monday, 1. June 2009 13:55:29 sashee wrote:
> We had a policy where I worked for some time, that if a bug is
> inactive for some time, and cannot be reproduced by the developer,
> will be force closed.
I know that from many other projects.
IIRC Gentoo uses "NEEDINFO" for that.
Best wishes,
On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Having said that, we might need somewhere to put mantis, if we decide to
> keep it (although everyone else seems to want to get rid of it). We don't
> have any other need for php afaik, although we need SSL redirects.
How about hosting
On Monday 01 June 2009 12:22:07 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM, xor wrote:
> > On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> I like this idea. ?I think it is clear that there is a lot of cruft in
> >> Mantis, open bugs that are no-longer relevant etc.
On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Having said that, we might need somewhere to put mantis, if we decide to
keep it (although everyone else seems to want to get rid of it). We don't
have any other need for php afaik, although we need SSL redirects.
How about hosting
On Monday, 1. June 2009 13:55:29 sashee wrote:
We had a policy where I worked for some time, that if a bug is
inactive for some time, and cannot be reproduced by the developer,
will be force closed.
I know that from many other projects.
IIRC Gentoo uses NEEDINFO for that.
Best wishes,
Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Having said that, we might need somewhere to put mantis, if we decide to
keep it (although everyone else seems to want to get rid of it). We don't
have any other need for php afaik, although we need SSL
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Florent Daigniere
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Having said that, we might need somewhere to put mantis, if we decide to
keep it (although everyone else seems to want to
Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Florent Daigniere
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Having said that, we might need somewhere to put mantis, if we decide to
keep it (although everyone
On Tuesday 02 June 2009 14:27:10 Florent Daigniere wrote:
Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Florent Daigniere
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
On Monday, 1. June 2009 11:39:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Having said that, we might need
On Tuesday, 2. June 2009 13:53:37 Daniel Cheng wrote:
I have had some very bad experience with SF's servers around year 2001.
It was slow and buggy. Is that fixed now?
They did some nice updates - I didn't have bad experiences with it for years,
now.
- Arne
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
xor skrev:
> On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
>> I like this idea. I think it is clear that there is a lot of cruft in
>> Mantis, open bugs that are no-longer relevant etc. Cleaning house
>> would be useful.
>>
>> Ian.
>
> I am strongly against getting rid of the bugtracker
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM, xor wrote:
> On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
>>
>> I like this idea. ?I think it is clear that there is a lot of cruft in
>> Mantis, open bugs that are no-longer relevant etc. ?Cleaning house
>> would be useful.
>>
>> Ian.
>
> I am strongly
We had a policy where I worked for some time, that if a bug is
inactive for some time, and cannot be reproduced by the developer,
will be force closed.
This would be applicable to freenet, because if a problem still
exists, users will open a ticket, you cannot expect that users will
search for an
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> I like this idea. I think it is clear that there is a lot of cruft in
> Mantis, open bugs that are no-longer relevant etc. Cleaning house
> would be useful.
>
> Ian.
I am strongly against getting rid of the bugtracker contents if that is
On Sunday 31 May 2009 05:26:33 Juiceman wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:55:17 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and
> >> we don't seem able to cost-effecitvely
On Sunday 31 May 2009 05:26:33 Juiceman wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:55:17 Matthew Toseland wrote:
We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and
we don't seem able to
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
I like this idea. I think it is clear that there is a lot of cruft in
Mantis, open bugs that are no-longer relevant etc. Cleaning house
would be useful.
Ian.
I am strongly against getting rid of the bugtracker contents if that is what
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
I like this idea. I think it is clear that there is a lot of cruft in
Mantis, open bugs that are no-longer relevant etc. Cleaning house
would be useful.
Ian.
I am strongly against
We had a policy where I worked for some time, that if a bug is
inactive for some time, and cannot be reproduced by the developer,
will be force closed.
This would be applicable to freenet, because if a problem still
exists, users will open a ticket, you cannot expect that users will
search for an
xor skrev:
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
I like this idea. I think it is clear that there is a lot of cruft in
Mantis, open bugs that are no-longer relevant etc. Cleaning house
would be useful.
Ian.
I am strongly against getting rid of the bugtracker contents if
On Monday 01 June 2009 12:22:07 Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
I like this idea. I think it is clear that there is a lot of cruft in
Mantis, open bugs that are no-longer relevant etc. Cleaning
On Saturday, 30. May 2009 19:41:24 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Emu is constantly segfaulting in php-cgi, this is one reason to want to
> move. It would be partly solved by making it all static.
What exactly is needed?
I have some 2GiB diskspace and unknown bandwidth laying unused (I grabbed a
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Juiceman wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
>> On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:55:17 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>> We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
>>> don't seem able to cost-effecitvely
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:11:42 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Florent Daigni?re
>> wrote:
>> > * Matthew Toseland [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
>> []
>> >> - Database-backed PHP for MANTIS. I don't think we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
> IMHO the (debatable) fact that the web site sucks is an independant question.
> Right now we could make it all static and this would improve performance
> during a slashdotting, make it much easier to find cheap or free
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:55:17 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
>> don't seem able to cost-effecitvely administer it.
>>
>> Basically what we need:
>> - PHP scripts.
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Florent Daigni?re
wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
[]
>> - Database-backed PHP for MANTIS. I don't think we should get rid of MANTIS.
>
> I do think we should; three main reasons:
> ? ? ? ?- mantis is just not adapted to our usage anymore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland a écrit :
IMHO the (debatable) fact that the web site sucks is an independant question.
Right now we could make it all static and this would improve performance
during a slashdotting, make it much easier to find cheap or free
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:11:42 Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Florent Daignière
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Juiceman juicema...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:55:17 Matthew Toseland wrote:
We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
don't
On Saturday, 30. May 2009 19:41:24 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Emu is constantly segfaulting in php-cgi, this is one reason to want to
move. It would be partly solved by making it all static.
What exactly is needed?
I have some 2GiB diskspace and unknown bandwidth laying unused (I grabbed a
On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:55:17 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
> don't seem able to cost-effecitvely administer it.
>
> Basically what we need:
> - PHP scripts. The website is built with PHP.
But it could easily be all
On Saturday 30 May 2009 15:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
> > Well, the website is all about its content; not the engine... I do think
> > that google's website thingy (http://sites.google.com) is more than
> > enough for our purpose.
>
> I
On Saturday 30 May 2009 15:09:51 Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
> > Anything I've missed?
> >
> > One option:
> >
> > http://www.uk2.net/web-hosting/
> >
> > Includes SSL, IMAP, 1TB traffic per month (bandwidth is very expensive with
> > bytemark, even if
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:11:42 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
> > * Matthew Toseland [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
> []
> >> - Database-backed PHP for MANTIS. I don't think we should get rid of
> >> MANTIS.
> >
> > I do think we should; three
On Saturday 30 May 2009 17:01:25 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
> > Tools won't help the fact that we don't have good web-designers :)
>
> If you can't do it yourself, copy someone that can. That is the
> beauty of open source.
>
> There are
* Ian Clarke [2009-05-30 09:37:15]:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
> > Well, the website is all about its content; not the engine... I do think
> > that google's website thingy (http://sites.google.com) is more than
> > enough for our purpose.
>
> I like this
* Matthew Toseland [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
> We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
> don't seem able to cost-effecitvely administer it.
>
> Basically what we need:
> - PHP scripts. The website is built with PHP.
Well, the website is all about its content;
We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
don't seem able to cost-effecitvely administer it.
Basically what we need:
- PHP scripts. The website is built with PHP.
- Database-backed PHP for MANTIS. I don't think we should get rid of MANTIS.
- SSL. We need to
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Florent Daigni?re
wrote:
> Tools won't help the fact that we don't have good web-designers :)
If you can't do it yourself, copy someone that can. That is the
beauty of open source.
There are plenty of open source css and html files we could use as a
starting
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Florent Daigni?re
wrote:
> Well, the website is all about its content; not the engine... I do think
> that google's website thingy (http://sites.google.com) is more than
> enough for our purpose.
I like this idea, provided that it is sufficient to meet our needs.
We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
don't seem able to cost-effecitvely administer it.
Basically what we need:
- PHP scripts. The website is built with PHP.
- Database-backed PHP for MANTIS. I don't think we should get rid of MANTIS.
- SSL. We need to
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
don't seem able to cost-effecitvely administer it.
Basically what we need:
- PHP scripts. The website is built with PHP.
Well, the website is all
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Florent Daignière
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Well, the website is all about its content; not the engine... I do think
that google's website thingy (http://sites.google.com) is more than
enough for our purpose.
I like this idea, provided that it is
* Ian Clarke i...@locut.us [2009-05-30 09:37:15]:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Florent Daignière
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Well, the website is all about its content; not the engine... I do think
that google's website thingy (http://sites.google.com) is more than
enough for
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Florent Daignière
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
[]
- Database-backed PHP for MANTIS. I don't think we should get rid of MANTIS.
I do think we should; three main reasons:
-
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Florent Daignière
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Tools won't help the fact that we don't have good web-designers :)
If you can't do it yourself, copy someone that can. That is the
beauty of open source.
There are plenty of open source css and html files we
On Saturday 30 May 2009 17:01:25 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Florent Daignière
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Tools won't help the fact that we don't have good web-designers :)
If you can't do it yourself, copy someone that can. That is the
beauty of open
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:11:42 Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Florent Daignière
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
[]
- Database-backed PHP for MANTIS. I don't think we should get rid of
On Saturday 30 May 2009 15:09:51 Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2009-05-30 11:55:17]:
Anything I've missed?
One option:
http://www.uk2.net/web-hosting/
Includes SSL, IMAP, 1TB traffic per month (bandwidth is very expensive with
bytemark,
On Saturday 30 May 2009 15:37:15 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Florent Daignière
nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Well, the website is all about its content; not the engine... I do think
that google's website thingy (http://sites.google.com) is more than
enough for
On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:55:17 Matthew Toseland wrote:
We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
don't seem able to cost-effecitvely administer it.
Basically what we need:
- PHP scripts. The website is built with PHP.
But it could easily be all static.
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:55:17 Matthew Toseland wrote:
We need to get rid of emu. It costs us a significant amount of money and we
don't seem able to cost-effecitvely administer it.
Basically what we need:
82 matches
Mail list logo
