* ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030630 17:22]:
> sourceforge is really having trouble nowadays. Half my browsers think the
> web pages are to be downloaded for some reason; cvs updates are seeing
> 24-hour delays; and random outages are a daily occurence.
Worst I saw was about a week of dela
You seem to be conflating two separate issues:
1) Source Forge is failing
2) CVS needs to be replaced
1. This may or may not be true - it seems to be working OK at the moment
for me (I commit to other projects than Linuxbios - which are probably
less active). But I would agree that SF is probabl
ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sourceforge is really having trouble nowadays. Half my browsers think the
> web pages are to be downloaded for some reason; cvs updates are seeing
> 24-hour delays; and random outages are a daily occurence.
Agreed. So something needs to be done.
> I
It prevents the person from using the prefered tools of the project
to contribute to the project. So when someone wants to get the
latest sources and there is no daily snapshot tarball the user
either has to fork over $4K (I think it costs that much I haven't
checked recently) or violate the lic
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Clark Rawlins wrote:
> The real problem with Larry's policy is that if you work on
> any other SCM code free or not you must buy the full version
> of the tools. That would lock out some of us who have worked
> on subversion/cvs/etc who want to work on LinuxBIOS.
that locks
The real problem with Larry's policy is that if you work on
any other SCM code free or not you must buy the full version
of the tools. That would lock out some of us who have worked
on subversion/cvs/etc who want to work on LinuxBIOS.
Before making the jump to bitkeeper a real consideration of t
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Peter Busser wrote:
> The most heard objection against bitkeeper is that it is not free software.
yeah, but that's actually ok by me. It's good software, and Larry's source
policy is actually very reasonable.
Plus he has a viable business, which means that they will probabl
Hello!
> Anyone have anything to say about this, pro or con?
The most heard objection against bitkeeper is that it is not free software.
Aegis (aegis.sourceforge.net) is free software.
Groetjes,
Peter Busser
--
The Adamantix Project
Taking trustworthy software out of the labs, and into the rea
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 08:22, ron minnich wrote:
> Any comments or objections to me at least looking into a move to
> bitkeeper.com? It has lots of advantages, not the least that it supports
> distributed repositories.
Things with Sourceforge are obviously only going to get worse, as VA is
in t
Hi Gregg,
> > Now the other question. Ron, which browsers are telling you this? I
> > can view all of the project pages without difficulty, on MSIE, and the
> > version of Netscape delivered on Slackware 8.0, also with the browsers
> > that came with Gnome.
> opera (latest)
> konqueror (3.0.5a-4)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Gregg C Levine wrote:
> Now the other question. Ron, which browsers are telling you this? I
> can view all of the project pages without difficulty, on MSIE, and the
> version of Netscape delivered on Slackware 8.0, also with the browsers
> that came with Gnome.
opera (latest)
Hello from Gregg C Levine
Good question. However, I haven't had any problems visiting the
project pages for the project. I agree, that the CVS stores indicate
that there's an unnecessary delay of about a day, but that's only on
the view function for CVS. They say that the problems are being
correct
12 matches
Mail list logo
