On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 17:37, José Fonseca wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:34:24PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > >Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >>On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 20:24, José Fonseca wrote:
> > >>>On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 06:58:39PM +0200, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> > >>>>These sourceforge "backup" server move is very annoying. It's
> > >>>>hindering open source so much.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Do we have other options?
> > >>
> > >>>If not then the solution would imply moving the CVS repository to a
> > >>>new machine, but where would that be? XFree86.org?
> > >>
> > >>I've tried to get a discussion going about migrating to XFree86 (and
> > >>Mesa, ...) before, without success. Maybe we'll have more luck this
> > >>time. :)
> > >
> > >The migration to mesa is in progress. To XFree86? Well, that's
> > >another question.
> > That sounds more negative than I wanted. Basically, after the drivers
> > are living in Mesa cvs, we could well end up just submitting patches
> > to XFree86 for the rest - but that would be giving up a significant
> > amount of control. Probably we'd always want to maintain an xc/ tree
> > somewhere for infrastructure work.
> I mentioned XFree86.org because (supposedly) it has the bandwith and
> machine resources to host the DRI repository, and obviously XFree86 and
> DRI are two very close entities. That being said, it would have to be in
> a seperate CVS repository so that DRI project administrators could have
> the same flexibility as in the SF project. Having the DRI repository as
> branches in the main XFree86 CVS is an utopia, now and the foreseenable
> future, IMO.
Why, what else do we have now but branches of XFree86 CVS, except that
they're in a different repository?
> But we really need to get a solution around the backup CVS server as it
> really damages the beneficial intervention of non-commiters can have
> since they are days behind what the commiters are doing.
I wonder if it's really such a pressing problem though. How many people
> Is it possible that SourceForge may reconsider that policy on a indivual
> project basis, i.e., would'nt it be a good idea for the DRI project
> admins to present this issue to the SF maintainers? They usually are
> flexible and even if not solving the problem completly maybe they can
> point workable solutions.
That would be good, but somehow I doubt it.
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer