Hi,
I don't think it is a good idea, we are a gnu idea. I never liked our
move to GNA and if the division irritates you, we should move the
sources back home. It was done back then because GNA had svn support
before gnu savannah...
my 2 cents,
R
On 05/23/2011 01:08 AM, Gregory Casamento wro
What would be the benefit of that move?
We moved our source code from Savannah to GNA because Savannah couldn't provide
us with SVN at that time. But why would we move the bug system?
I don't see any extra benefit and would rather see the time that goes into that
change being spend on fixing thes
On 23.05.2011 01:10, Germán Arias wrote:
On lun, 2011-05-23 at 00:13 +0200, Fred Kiefer wrote:
On 22.05.2011 01:50, Germán Arias wrote:
Compiling GUI with gcc 4.6.0 I get the error:
Making all for tool say...
Compiling file say.m ...
say.m: In function 'main':
say.m:17:12: error: defines th
Riccardo,
GNA is a GNU/FSF server just the same as savannah... there's nothing
special about savannah at all. The disadvantage to moving the
sources back is that people would have to alter their SVN repositories
to point to Savannah and it would be disruptive.
Simply moving bug tracking to GNA
The reasoning/benefit is that the project as a whole would reside in
one place, not two and would be less confusing for new users to figure
out where to submit bugs.
The time invested in the change would be minimal since it would just
be a matter of turning on the bug tracking on gna and disallowi
David just corrected me... savannah is FSF, gna is FSF-E. I don't
care about organizational stuff... I just care about making things
easier for users.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Gregory Casamento
wrote:
> Riccardo,
>
> GNA is a GNU/FSF server just the same as savannah... there's nothing
>
I like the idea but I doubt it would make users life easier. For instance, a
user found a bug and google for it and will end up with mixed of two site,
asking themselves which one to use. The search for existing bugs by site
interface could also be dupped efforts. Nonetheless, I support the move
On 23 May 2011, at 14:28, Banlu Kemiyatorn wrote:
> I like the idea but I doubt it would make users life easier. For instance, a
> user found a bug and google for it and will end up with mixed of two site,
> asking themselves which one to use. The search for existing bugs by site
> interface co
Banlu,
Given that real-life users have complained to me that having the
project essentially split in two being confusing not withstanding
I don't agree with your assessment that it will make things harder.
I simply would like to have things in one place. Right now we're
spread between GNA
I simply would like to have things in one place. Right now we're
spread between GNA and Savannah.
It sounds like a good idea - I support it.
But, I would recommend that:
* we put up extensive announcements on the web site, mailing list,
etc.
* we try to migrate over the open bugs. I h
Hi,
Yeh, My point was just that so many people are accessing stuffs based
on meta data, tags et al. ie. using google-fu rather accessing through
the structural web interface. I can't be sure how many people prefer
accessing stuffs structurally, but certainly a lot. Anyway, we should
have a better w
Hey guys... this isn't a direct response to Nicola, I'm just adding a
few more thoughts here.
Simply put we either need GNUstep to be on either savannah or GNA.
My concern about moving it back to savannah is that it would be
disruptive for anyone who has GNUstep currently checked out.
Additionally
Hi,
Gregory Casamento wrote:
Hey guys... this isn't a direct response to Nicola, I'm just adding a
few more thoughts here.
Simply put we either need GNUstep to be on either savannah or GNA.
My concern about moving it back to savannah is that it would be
disruptive for anyone who has GNUstep cu
First off, I am not against moving the rest of the project over to GNA.
Basing it on the FSF or the FSF-E is all the same to me. Although I know
more of the European FSF people in person.
Having the bulk of GNUstep in one place sounds like a nice idea. We
could go either way. What I didn't lik
Am 23.05.2011 um 19:02 schrieb Gregory Casamento:
> Hey guys... this isn't a direct response to Nicola, I'm just adding a
> few more thoughts here.
>
> Simply put we either need GNUstep to be on either savannah or GNA.
> My concern about moving it back to savannah is that it would be
> disruptiv
Could we add a script to Makefile and leave the svn alone for a while
until most are updated to the script? Could be fun to think that it
will actually work out remotely or not.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller
wrote:
>
> Am 23.05.2011 um 19:02 schrieb Gregory Casamento:
Sorry, I just read your first line!
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Banlu Kemiyatorn wrote:
> Could we add a script to Makefile and leave the svn alone for a while
> until most are updated to the script? Could be fun to think that it
> will actually work out remotely or not.
>
> On Tue, May 24,
Am 23.05.2011 um 13:38 schrieb Fred Kiefer:
> Having the bulk of GNUstep in one place sounds like a nice idea.
Very true.
David
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
18 matches
Mail list logo
