On 2016-06-14 at 02:25:13 +, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> I would say ‘too little too late’
>
> Since we are already developing on github (many of whose nice features are
> reminiscent of the old SF) I say cut the cord!
What will we do with the mailing list, website, issue tracker, and wiki?
Fo
I would say ‘too little too late’
Since we are already developing on github (many of whose nice features are
reminiscent of the old SF) I say cut the cord!
Karl
> On 13 Jun 2016, at 1:46 PM, Derek Lamb wrote:
>
> Apparently there's been an acquisition, some soul searching, and maybe SF is
>
Apparently there's been an acquisition, some soul searching, and maybe SF is
heading down a better path now:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/4n3e1s/the_state_of_sourceforge_since_its_acquisition_in/
> On Jun 12, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Craig DeForest wrote:
>
> Hear, hear! I’m all for it.
Hear, hear! I’m all for it.
> On Jun 12, 2016, at 8:41 PM, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>
> The sourceforge web set looks more and more like a ‘rent by the hour’ cheap
> hotel every time I go to it. Also there are some dodgy practices going on
> there which I don’t think we want to be associated wi
The sourceforge web set looks more and more like a ‘rent by the hour’ cheap
hotel every time I go to it. Also there are some dodgy practices going on there
which I don’t think we want to be associated with -
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2931753/open-source-software/sourceforge-the-end-cant-c
Could we please avoid re-configuration of the git until
things are stable after 2.008 is released and we have
some sort of plan for a PDL git workflow standard?
--Chris
On 2/28/2015 15:19, Ed wrote:
Dear PDL devs,
I have set the Git configuration to now allow force-pushes. This is
essential fo
Dear PDL devs,
I have set the Git configuration to now allow force-pushes. This is essential
for topic branches. It is now physically possible on master, but it is bad
practice to use it on that, so please don’t.
Best regards,
Ed--
