Mike McGrath wrote:
Collab1 is a server focused around our collaboration tools. Right now it
has some mailing lists and a sobby server. It will probably also have our
pastebin in the future once it gets ready.
Cool, definitely sounds like I need to ping you more online about this.
Next
Hi,
This is w.r.t to ticket #714[1].
As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
projects that are
not altered or updated for last six months.
Here is the list of projects, which falls into this category and they
will soon be removed.
Mike McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
[1]https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/714
So I guess the best thing from here is to send an email to each group
notifying them of what has happened and why we'd like to remove their
project. tell them how to get the code off if
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:33 +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
projects that are
not altered or updated for last six months.
Hmmm -- this seems a little problematic. It's definitely possible to
have a mature project which
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:33 +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
projects that are
not altered or updated for last six months.
Hmmm -- this seems a little problematic. It's definitely
As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
projects that are
not altered or updated for last six months.
I am pleasantly suprised to see that Opyum is not in that list. :-)
The thing with Opyum is that its functionality has been very nicely
ported to PackageKit by
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 12:02:04PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:33 +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
projects that are
not altered or updated for last six months.
Hmmm -- this seems a little
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:20:25PM +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
The thing with Opyum is that its functionality has been very nicely
ported to PackageKit by one of my friends during this year's Google
Summer of Code. Fedora 8 still caries Opyum, but its useless for
Fedora 9 and onwards. I just
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ian Weller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:20:25PM +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
The thing with Opyum is that its functionality has been very nicely
ported to PackageKit by one of my friends during this year's Google
Summer of Code. Fedora 8 still caries Opyum, but its
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 03:35:41PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
This is one of the things we're hoping to prevent with fedorahosted. The
hope is that the fedorahosted brand will be known for good, active
projects. Not vaporware.
We'll certainly be contacting the project members and let them
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ian Weller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 03:35:41PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
This is one of the things we're hoping to prevent with fedorahosted. The
hope is that the fedorahosted brand will be known for good, active
projects. Not vaporware.
We'll certainly be
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:35:56PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 12:02:04PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:33 +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
projects that are
not altered or
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
barrier to enter low but the quality high. Certainly there's projects
that don't need to be updated every 6 months but we can identify those and
deal
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:fedora-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Norwood
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:11 PM
To: Fedora Infrastructure
Subject: Re: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
barrier to enter low but the quality high. Certainly there's projects
that don't need to be updated every 6
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Brett Lentz wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:fedora-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Norwood
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:11 PM
To: Fedora Infrastructure
Subject: Re: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
On
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Brett Lentz wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:fedora-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Norwood
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:11 PM
To: Fedora Infrastructure
Subject: Re: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
On
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, the terms of use are already pretty clear. And no one has provided
a compelling reason to keep these projects around, just lots of
suggestions on how to keep them around. Deleted is what we want, not
delisted or
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:fedora-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike McGrath
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:37 PM
To: Fedora Infrastructure
Subject: RE: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Brett Lentz wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, the terms of use are already pretty clear. And no one has provided
a compelling reason to keep these projects around, just lots of
suggestions on how to keep them around.
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:34 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
barrier to enter low but the quality high. Certainly
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:34 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
barrier to
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 22:11 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:34 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, the terms of use are already pretty clear. And no one has provided
a compelling reason to keep these projects
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, the terms of use are already pretty clear. And no one has
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
I don't see why that project would get removed. I really think I'm
getting misunderstood here.
I think that part of the misunderstanding is that I don't see six
months as equivalent to stale. We're not even to the seven year
point of RHEL
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:33 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, the terms
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
I don't see why that project would get removed. I really think I'm
getting misunderstood here.
I think that part of the misunderstanding is that I don't see six
months as equivalent to stale.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
Backups, time to maintain, bandwidth for the backups, testing when we make
changes, people to notify should our Infrastructure get compromised again,
etc, the unknown.
Backups really are equivalent to disk space. Testing for changes --
maybe. But
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
Backups, time to maintain, bandwidth for the backups, testing when we make
changes, people to notify should our Infrastructure get compromised again,
etc, the unknown.
Backups really are equivalent to
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:33 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath
31 matches
Mail list logo
