As we all should know by now, Sourceforge's CVS access went down on Jan 26 due
to an attack on their servers and is still down now with no estimate of when
it'll be back. Sourceforge has also indicated that they're considering ending
CVS access altogether in the near future since its
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/6/11 1:53 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
As we all should know by now, Sourceforge's CVS access went down on Jan 26
due to an attack on their servers and is still down now with no estimate of
when it'll be back. Sourceforge has also indicated
On Feb 6, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/6/11 1:53 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
As we all should know by now, Sourceforge's CVS access went down on Jan 26
due to an attack on their servers and is still down now with no estimate
On 2/6/11 2:41 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
Would we have the ability easily to regulate commits access on a more
fine-grained level than we're using right now? E.g. to give most
established maintainers the ability to commit and modify their own .info
files but not to modify those of other
On Feb 6, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
As we all should know by now, Sourceforge's CVS access went down on
Jan 26 due to an attack on their servers and is still down now with
no estimate of when it'll be back. Sourceforge has also indicated
that they're considering ending CVS
On Feb 6, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
On 2/6/11 2:41 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
Would we have the ability easily to regulate commits access on a
more
fine-grained level than we're using right now? E.g. to give most
established maintainers the ability to commit and modify
Daniel,
what you describe sounds quite sensible. At least for the time being, switching
to SVN seems like a good migration strategy. I do believe that on the long run,
using git for devs and rsync for users will be a better strategy, but that
could still be implemented later, by somebody ;)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/6/11 3:01 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Daniel,
what you describe sounds quite sensible. At least for the time being,
switching to SVN seems like a good migration strategy. I do believe that on
the long run, using git for devs and rsync for users
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:28:44 -0500, Alexander Hansen wrote:
On 2/6/11 1:53 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
There's nothing more that can be done at the moment since both
cvs and shell access are still down, and we can't enable svn without
them. I just wanted to put this out there and see
Hi,
Sorry for your inconvenience.
We have also received a report from Jean Orloff that
dvips exits abnormally in x86_64 env. See also:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=117203aid=3168548group_id=17203
(if \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}) is comment-outed, it works)
Currently we don't
10 matches
Mail list logo
