From: Rick L. <ric...@us...> - 2003-01-23 02:02:14
|
I've heard -- and I won't quote anybody because I wasn't listening closely at the time :) -- that there are some that find either the format or interface restrictive. An objective observation is that a lot of things archived on LSE are 2.4-based right now even though there's been a lot of 2.5 work by many of its members. Has using Sourceforge fallen out of favor with the kernel elite? Are other options for distributing patches and information (such as personal directories and kernel.org directories) more the current vogue? Do the members of LSE themselves have reasons for not using it? Raising the issue is, I suppose, how we avoid guessing. Myself .. I found it cumbersome to use at first but I use it infrequently because most of my work for the last year has been more internal than external. Until I'm familiar with them, I find most tools cumbersome to use at the start, though, so that's not much of a data point. I've not much opinion on this particular topic. Its mere existence is a big plus. I hope we're not talking about moving simply because two windows at the back of the house are stuck shut. But if there's something better available (fill in your definition of "better") then we as a group do owe it to ourselves to consider it. Rick |
From: Gerrit H. <gh...@us...> - 2003-01-23 02:36:36
|
Take a look at the download section. It really is painful to try to find a clean organization that stays useful. While there are still tons of activities on the scalability front, most people have given up on using sf as a place to try to publish their changes. The inability to view patches is one problem, the overhead for tracking problems really hasn't been useful for this project, the web page has value as generic space but not much else. The tracking of downloads is cool, but if people aren't as interested in downloading because of the indirection hassles, it doesn't help to track the downloads. Also, uploads are a bit painful - not terrible, but not great. And, the news blurbs being limited to an admin keeps people for using them as a free flowing announcement/discussion point for a team with some many active contributors. In some ways, it seems like simple ftp space and web space may provide most of what the project needs, and would cut down on the visual clutter and process overhead for adding, viewing, and downloading items of interest. gerrit > > So what brought up this issue? I don't know of any problems with > > it right now and I haven't heard of any rumors that it's folding > > in the imminent future so why make a change? > > > > In case you haven't guessed I'm in the `if it ain't broke don't fix > > it' camp. > > > > PS: I am a former VA employee but I don't carry a grudge against > > SourceForge. It provides a valuable service and I hope it stays > > around. > > The fact you can't link directly to patches is a pain in the butt, > for one. I think the general theme is "too complex, too high overhead" > as far as I'm concerned. > > M. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! > Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. > Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. > www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp > _______________________________________________ > Lse-tech mailing list > Lse...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lse-tech > > |
From: Gerrit H. <gh...@us...> - 2003-01-23 18:55:53
|
I still get thrown at a mirror selector - it doesn't give me the option to simply view the patch from within my browser. I have to select a mirror (and the cookie for mirror selection never sticks around, so I have to choose every time). Then, I get a nice netscape stderr output which appears to contain the file to be download, but with some characters "unprintable" and an "ok" button". And, finally, I'm forced to save the file, which is sometimes okay, but just a pain for viewing a patch. I don't know why they don't use quiet rotating mirrors through DNS like many other sites do, with a possible cookie preference you can select if you want a nearby mirror. There may be some browser oddities here (I'm using Netscape 4.77 under debian in this case - not the latest but still mostly function) oh - and I just tried galeon, still thrown into the "download file" dialog with the page showing mirror selection, even when changing ?download to ?umn.dl, for instance. Even cutting and pasting the actual mirror link into the the URL selection does exactly the same thing. Functional, yes. Convenient, no. gerrit > I can't comment on the other problems you and Gerritt raised but there > is a simple URL you can use to get to the files on the download page. > The URL on the page for file `foo' is > > http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/lse/foo?download > > If you delete `?download' and change `prdownloads' to `unc.dl' you get > a simple URL that can be used by `wget'. Turns out the `unc' part > identifies one of 8 different mirrors, you can change `unc' to anyone > of: > > easynews > unm > twtelecom > telia > switch > belnet > cesnet > > and still get the file. > > This probably breaks some unwritten SourceForge rule and I admit it is > a little cumbersome but it does seem to work. > d On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:35:32PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > > >... > > > > 1. I can scp a file to it. > > 2. I can email out a simple URL for people to get patches from > > (that works with wget and friends - ie no switch script garbage). > > > > Anything much heavier than this is just too much effort and burnt time. > > This is similar to other mutterings of discontent I've heard, but > > perhaps if others could list out their requirements too ??? > > > > M. > > > > PS. To me, it's not two windows that are stuck, it's the front and back > > doors. Climbing in through the windows does work, but is rather incovenient. > > -- > Don Dugger > "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale > n0...@ra... > Ph: 303/652-0870x117 > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! > Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. > Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. > www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp > _______________________________________________ > Lse-tech mailing list > Lse...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lse-tech > > |
From: Hanna L. <ha...@us...> - 2003-01-23 19:29:21
|
I agree with nOano and I think Rick that we should leave the existing 2.4 patches where they are (if only to keep old links in OLS papers still active). However, for the next push perhaps it is a good time to look at a new site for 2.5 work. The two options I have seen that look good are tigris and savannah. Here are the links: http://www.tigris.org http://savannah.nongnu.org If we separate the 2.4 and 2.5 lse projects do we continue to use the same mailing list? nOano, you are the maintainer of the mailing list and have the final say on whether or not to move the existing one. Im afraid moving the mailing list will create more confusion than clarity, what do you all think? This conversation is good, let's keep it up. So far the biggest complaint with sf seems to be the inability to view patches without downloading them first. More opinions? Hanna --On Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:55:22 AM -0800 Gerrit Huizenga <gh...@us...> wrote: > I still get thrown at a mirror selector - it doesn't give me the > option to simply view the patch from within my browser. I have to > select a mirror (and the cookie for mirror selection never sticks > around, so I have to choose every time). Then, I get a nice netscape > stderr output which appears to contain the file to be download, but > with some characters "unprintable" and an "ok" button". And, > finally, I'm forced to save the file, which is sometimes okay, but > just a pain for viewing a patch. > > I don't know why they don't use quiet rotating mirrors through > DNS like many other sites do, with a possible cookie preference > you can select if you want a nearby mirror. > > There may be some browser oddities here (I'm using Netscape 4.77 > under debian in this case - not the latest but still mostly > function) oh - and I just tried galeon, still thrown into the > "download file" dialog with the page showing mirror selection, even > when changing ?download to ?umn.dl, for instance. Even cutting > and pasting the actual mirror link into the the URL selection does > exactly the same thing. > > Functional, yes. Convenient, no. > > gerrit > >> I can't comment on the other problems you and Gerritt raised but there >> is a simple URL you can use to get to the files on the download page. >> The URL on the page for file `foo' is >> >> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/lse/foo?download >> >> If you delete `?download' and change `prdownloads' to `unc.dl' you get >> a simple URL that can be used by `wget'. Turns out the `unc' part >> identifies one of 8 different mirrors, you can change `unc' to anyone >> of: >> >> easynews >> unm >> twtelecom >> telia >> switch >> belnet >> cesnet >> >> and still get the file. >> >> This probably breaks some unwritten SourceForge rule and I admit it is >> a little cumbersome but it does seem to work. >> > d On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:35:32PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> > >> > ... >> > >> > 1. I can scp a file to it. >> > 2. I can email out a simple URL for people to get patches from >> > (that works with wget and friends - ie no switch script garbage). >> > >> > Anything much heavier than this is just too much effort and burnt time. >> > This is similar to other mutterings of discontent I've heard, but >> > perhaps if others could list out their requirements too ??? >> > >> > M. >> > >> > PS. To me, it's not two windows that are stuck, it's the front and back >> > doors. Climbing in through the windows does work, but is rather incovenient. >> >> -- >> Don Dugger >> "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale >> n0...@ra... >> Ph: 303/652-0870x117 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! >> Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. >> Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. >> www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp >> _______________________________________________ >> Lse-tech mailing list >> Lse...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lse-tech >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Lse-tech mailing list > Lse...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lse-tech > |
From: Martin J. B. <mb...@ar...> - 2003-01-23 19:59:03
|
> I agree with nOano and I think Rick that we should leave > the existing 2.4 patches where they are (if only to > keep old links in OLS papers still active). However, for > the next push perhaps it is a good time to look at a > new site for 2.5 work. The two options I have seen that > look good are tigris and savannah. Here are the links: > > http://www.tigris.org > http://savannah.nongnu.org Not sure if tigris deals with this kind of thing: * Tigris.org is a mid-sized open source community focused on building better tools for collaborative software development. * You will not find thousands of unrelated projects here: every project fits into the Tigris vision. Savannah looks good, seems to have ssh access, but also seems to have an underlying dependency on CVS .. not sure how invisible this is underneath? Has anyone played with this? > If we separate the 2.4 and 2.5 lse projects do we continue > to use the same mailing list? nOano, you are the maintainer > of the mailing list and have the final say on whether or > not to move the existing one. Im afraid moving the mailing > list will create more confusion than clarity, what do you > all think? IMHO, the mailing list seems to be working fine as is ... > This conversation is good, let's keep it up. So far the biggest > complaint with sf seems to be the inability to view patches > without downloading them first. You can do that, I think. Pushing patches up is a pain tho. M. |
From: Hanna L. <ha...@us...> - 2003-01-23 20:04:32
|
-On Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:58:51 AM -0800 "Martin J. Bligh" <mb...@ar...> wrote: >> This conversation is good, let's keep it up. So far the biggest >> complaint with sf seems to be the inability to view patches >> without downloading them first. > > You can do that, I think. Pushing patches up is a pain tho. You can't look at patches without downloading them, that is one of the main complaints. You used to be able to but that changed a while ago. Hanna |
From: Martin J. B. <mb...@ar...> - 2003-01-23 20:15:49
|
>>> This conversation is good, let's keep it up. So far the biggest >>> complaint with sf seems to be the inability to view patches >>> without downloading them first. >> >> You can do that, I think. Pushing patches up is a pain tho. > > You can't look at patches without downloading them, that is > one of the main complaints. You used to be able to but that > changed a while ago. Oh. Just tried it. It seems that it has been so long since I last used it that they've managed to break yet another element of the interface. Another big reason to ditch sourceforge ;-) Thanks for the correction, M. |
From: Martin J. B. <mb...@ar...> - 2003-01-23 02:35:37
|
> I've heard -- and I won't quote anybody because I wasn't listening closely > at the time :) -- that there are some that find either the format or > interface restrictive. An objective observation is that a lot of things > archived on LSE are 2.4-based right now even though there's been a lot > of 2.5 work by many of its members. Has using Sourceforge fallen out of > favor with the kernel elite? Are other options for distributing patches > and information (such as personal directories and kernel.org directories) > more the current vogue? Do the members of LSE themselves have reasons > for not using it? Raising the issue is, I suppose, how we avoid guessing. > > Myself .. I found it cumbersome to use at first but I use it infrequently > because most of my work for the last year has been more internal than > external. Until I'm familiar with them, I find most tools cumbersome > to use at the start, though, so that's not much of a data point. I've > not much opinion on this particular topic. > > Its mere existence is a big plus. I hope we're not talking about moving > simply because two windows at the back of the house are stuck shut. > But if there's something better available (fill in your definition of > "better") then we as a group do owe it to ourselves to consider it. Personally, I have only two real requirements: 1. I can scp a file to it. 2. I can email out a simple URL for people to get patches from (that works with wget and friends - ie no switch script garbage). Anything much heavier than this is just too much effort and burnt time. This is similar to other mutterings of discontent I've heard, but perhaps if others could list out their requirements too ??? M. PS. To me, it's not two windows that are stuck, it's the front and back doors. Climbing in through the windows does work, but is rather incovenient. |
From: <n0...@n0...> - 2003-01-23 05:17:19
|
I can't comment on the other problems you and Gerritt raised but there is a simple URL you can use to get to the files on the download page. The URL on the page for file `foo' is http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/lse/foo?download If you delete `?download' and change `prdownloads' to `unc.dl' you get a simple URL that can be used by `wget'. Turns out the `unc' part identifies one of 8 different mirrors, you can change `unc' to anyone of: easynews unm twtelecom telia switch belnet cesnet and still get the file. This probably breaks some unwritten SourceForge rule and I admit it is a little cumbersome but it does seem to work. On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:35:32PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >... > > 1. I can scp a file to it. > 2. I can email out a simple URL for people to get patches from > (that works with wget and friends - ie no switch script garbage). > > Anything much heavier than this is just too much effort and burnt time. > This is similar to other mutterings of discontent I've heard, but > perhaps if others could list out their requirements too ??? > > M. > > PS. To me, it's not two windows that are stuck, it's the front and back > doors. Climbing in through the windows does work, but is rather incovenient. -- Don Dugger "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale n0...@ra... Ph: 303/652-0870x117 |