Barry,
I have updated the DNS entry for 2013.foss4g.org to point to our WebExtra
VM, checked out the site there, and setup the apache config to serve it.
Once the DNS propogates you should be able to find the site there.
Not too surprisingly the search box doesn't work. Is there much other
"acti
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Barry Rowlingson
wrote:
...
> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/website/
>
> and apart from not displaying index.html files on directories I reckon
> it should be almost usable from that URL. Of course it will be happier
> when stuck on an apache box with its d
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Anne Ghisla wrote:
> Same from me. If you find a valuable tool and wish to have an OSGeo
> instance of it, let Board/SAC know.
I've not seen anything OpenSource that looks as good for team work as
the glossy advertising promise of OpenAtrium:
http://openatrium.c
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:20:01 -0800
Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
> The Cookbook, Lessons Learned, and the recent 2013 summary have
> been the most valuable for us.
>
> The archive may have some value as a historical artifact, but that
> kind of higher level stuff is far more valuable. The day to day
The Cookbook, Lessons Learned, and the recent 2013 summary have been the most
valuable for us.
The archive may have some value as a historical artifact, but that kind of
higher level stuff is far more valuable. The day to day discussion threads
simply do not matter.
And I'm with Steven, wiki
years' archives
__
Steven
>
>
>
>
> From: Jeff McKenna
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving
> Date: 4 December 2013 15:57:01 GMT
> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>
>
> As for the Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Alex Mandel wrote:
> The size in general is not an issue. You're right that sticking that
> much in svn is usually a pain, but not if it's one time deal. This is a
> good question for the System Admin Committee to ponder though. I think
> most people would want a s
On 12/04/2013 08:00 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jo Cook wrote:
>> There's already a repository for 2013 at
>> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
>> documents at present that I uploaded at the start of the process). I'm
>> c
I disagree completely about the basecamp archive. The whole purpose of what
I'm doing at the moment is to archive it in a useful format, with
discussion threads linking to files rather than a bunch of wiki pages. I
appreciate that preserving things on the wiki is a good idea, and that's
what we hav
As for the Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-is, but what should
be done is to extract out the individual parts (docs, raw logos) then
upload them individually to SVN, and then move the discussions into
OSGeo wiki pages. Of course this is much easier to do from the
beginning of the event p
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jo Cook wrote:
> There's already a repository for 2013 at
> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
> documents at present that I uploaded at the start of the process). I'm
> currently wgetting the basecamp project that we were us
There's already a repository for 2013 at
http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
documents at present that I uploaded at the start of the process). I'm
currently wgetting the basecamp project that we were using, so I can verify
that we will also be archiving that
The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:
1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
mapgallery images: 74Mb
2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb
3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc
4. Google Docs: ???Mb
I'm responsible for 1
13 matches
Mail list logo
