Menu
▾
▴
fetchmail-devel
|
From: Graham W. <bo...@de...> - 2004-06-26 06:08:50
|
Will anybody miss the following if removed from the tree? bighand.png CHANGES FetchmailOfSatan.gif fetchmail.png fetchmail.ppm fetchmail.py fetchmail.xpm funny.html libntlm-0.21/ mime64/ OPTIONS README.NTLM RFC/ rh-config/ Also, are we planning on using the testing framework and tools that esr used? -- gram |
|
From: Matthias A. <ma...@dt...> - 2004-06-26 10:45:43
|
Graham Wilson <bo...@de...> writes: > Will anybody miss the following if removed from the tree? > > bighand.png > CHANGES > FetchmailOfSatan.gif > fetchmail.png > fetchmail.ppm > fetchmail.py > fetchmail.xpm The xpm is needed to build the RPM, the pngs are probably used for the web site. I haven't looked at fetchmail.py and .ppm. I personally wouldn't miss FetchmailOfSatan.gif. > funny.html > libntlm-0.21/ > mime64/ > OPTIONS > README.NTLM > RFC/ > rh-config/ As to the other stuff, I'd wait for Rob's comments first. > Also, are we planning on using the testing framework and tools that esr > used? Rob was pondering about how to reactivate the testing framework. As far as I've read between the lines he wrote, he'd like to conduct regression tests before releasing the next version. -- Matthias Andree Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 |
|
From: Graham W. <bo...@de...> - 2004-06-29 02:50:01
|
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:45:38AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > Graham Wilson <bo...@de...> writes: > > Will anybody miss the following if removed from the tree? > > > > bighand.png > > CHANGES > > FetchmailOfSatan.gif > > fetchmail.png > > fetchmail.ppm > > fetchmail.py > > fetchmail.xpm > > The xpm is needed to build the RPM, I use the XPM for the Debian package as well, so I guess it would be alright to keep that. > the pngs are probably used for the web site. I believe any of the website related stuff should be moved out of the trunk. If we still want to keep it under version control, we can create a new directory in the top-level of the repository for the files. > I haven't looked at fetchmail.py That seems to be esr's work on the Python fetchmail. I recommend that we remove it. > and .ppm. This seems to me to be a copy (in portable pixmap format) of the X pixmap file. I think we whould remove it as well. > I personally wouldn't miss FetchmailOfSatan.gif. Yes, that should certainly go. > > Also, are we planning on using the testing framework and tools that esr > > used? > > Rob was pondering about how to reactivate the testing framework. As far > as I've read between the lines he wrote, he'd like to conduct regression > tests before releasing the next version. I think we should move the testing scripts (torturetest.* and test*) should be moved to dist-tools/test/. The other scripts that esr used (getstats.py, growthplot, indexgen.sh, listsize, makerelease, timeplot, timeseries, upload, and uploadfaq that I can see) should be moved to dist-tools/. Matthias, Rob, would you guys be alright this? -- gram |
|
From: Rob F. <rf...@fu...> - 2004-06-30 22:02:50
|
Graham Wilson wrote: > I believe any of the website related stuff should be moved out of the > trunk. If we still want to keep it under version control, we can create > a new directory in the top-level of the repository for the files. I'd prefer to keep the top level of the repository at just the trunk, branch, tag stuff. That matches up best with the subversion documentation and various auxiliary tools. I'd be in favor of making a subdirectory for the web stuff though. I need to look at the index generatorscript to see how much we need to change anyway. > > > Also, are we planning on using the testing framework and tools that > > > esr used? > > > > Rob was pondering about how to reactivate the testing framework. As > > far as I've read between the lines he wrote, he'd like to conduct > > regression tests before releasing the next version. Ideally I'd like to do that, but I'm not sure how much we'll be able to. There are lots of passwords that can't be shared, and I'm not even sure how many of the server owners are willing to transfer their permission for testing away from ESR to us. I think some of the entries on the test list are even ESR's own accounts. > I think we should move the testing scripts (torturetest.* and test*) > should be moved to dist-tools/test/. > > The other scripts that esr used (getstats.py, growthplot, indexgen.sh, > listsize, makerelease, timeplot, timeseries, upload, and uploadfaq that > I can see) should be moved to dist-tools/. Sounds good to me. Paths will probably need to be changed in them though. (Some need even more work than that.) Is CHANGES required for some autotools stuff? It looks like a placeholder to me. I believe bighand.png is intended as the web page logo, so that should be kept. I'm fine with dropping funny.html if nobody wants it in the new web page. We might want to wait until we have such a web page built before actually getting rid of it though. If the libntlm and mime64 contents are not used in the actual fetchmail code, we can probably get rid of them. On the other hand, README.NTLM seems to go with the copies of the libntlm files that we're actually distributing, so should probably stay. OPTIONS seems to belong in some sort of historical archive. RFC/ could go in a document archive area (alongside OPTIONS?), or could be considered redundant. If deleted, I'd prefer to replace it with an HTML file of links to canonical locations of the same documents. Isn't rh-config/ necessary for building the rpm? -- ==============================| "A microscope locked in on one point Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> |Never sees what kind of room that it's in" http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" |
|
From: Matthias A. <ma...@dt...> - 2004-06-30 23:11:55
|
Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> writes: > Is CHANGES required for some autotools stuff? It looks like a placeholder > to me. Not to my knowledge. The canonical name for such a file is ChangeLog (it's one of the files that automake will distribute even if it isn't listed). It doesn't have useful content either. -- Matthias Andree Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 (PGP/MIME preferred) |
|
From: Graham W. <bo...@de...> - 2004-07-04 00:40:05
|
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 04:02:40PM -0400, Rob Funk wrote: > I'd be in favor of making a subdirectory for the web stuff though. I need > to look at the index generatorscript to see how much we need to change > anyway. Sounds fine. Would the webpage stuff be released in tarballs? On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 04:02:40PM -0400, Rob Funk wrote: > Graham Wilson wrote: > > I think we should move the testing scripts (torturetest.* and test*) > > should be moved to dist-tools/test/. > > > > The other scripts that esr used (getstats.py, growthplot, indexgen.sh, > > listsize, makerelease, timeplot, timeseries, upload, and uploadfaq that > > I can see) should be moved to dist-tools/. > > Sounds good to me. Paths will probably need to be changed in them though. > (Some need even more work than that.) Should I just move stuff now, and we can fix the scripts up as we use them, or the other way around? > I believe bighand.png is intended as the web page logo, so that should be > kept. Alright, let's remember to put it in the web directory. > I'm fine with dropping funny.html if nobody wants it in the new web page. > We might want to wait until we have such a web page built before actually > getting rid of it though. I'd say let's just create a 'www' or 'web' subdirectory in the trunk now, and move the current stuff into it. We can then decide about 'funny.html' later. > If the libntlm and mime64 contents are not used in the actual fetchmail > code, we can probably get rid of them. On the other hand, README.NTLM > seems to go with the copies of the libntlm files that we're actually > distributing, so should probably stay. I figured we could delete README.NTLM along with libntlm. README.NTLM was distributed with tarballs, whereas libtlm wasn't, at least that I can tell. > OPTIONS seems to belong in some sort of historical archive. Unless we plan on using it, I think we should delete it. Should we need it, the file will always be in the older version on version control. > RFC/ could go in a document archive area (alongside OPTIONS?), or could be > considered redundant. If deleted, I'd prefer to replace it with an HTML > file of links to canonical locations of the same documents. I would think we could just get rid of it outright; I doesn't seem that esr ever shipped it with tarballs, but rather only had it around for personal use. > Isn't rh-config/ necessary for building the rpm? I wouldn't know. :) -- gram |
|
From: Rob F. <rf...@fu...> - 2004-07-05 00:57:57
|
Graham Wilson wrote: > Would the webpage stuff be released in tarballs? I wouldn't think so. > Should I just move stuff now, and we can fix the scripts up as we use > them, or the other way around? I think it's fine to move stuff first. > > If the libntlm and mime64 contents are not used in the actual fetchmail > > code, we can probably get rid of them. On the other hand, README.NTLM > > seems to go with the copies of the libntlm files that we're actually > > distributing, so should probably stay. > > I figured we could delete README.NTLM along with libntlm. README.NTLM > was distributed with tarballs, whereas libtlm wasn't, at least that I > can tell. Err, I'm confused here. README.NTLM was distributed. libntlm files were distributed (not in the libntlm directory). Why delete README.NTLM? > > OPTIONS seems to belong in some sort of historical archive. > > Unless we plan on using it, I think we should delete it. Should we need > it, the file will always be in the older version on version control. True. > > RFC/ could go in a document archive area (alongside OPTIONS?), or could > > be considered redundant. If deleted, I'd prefer to replace it with an > > HTML file of links to canonical locations of the same documents. > > I would think we could just get rid of it outright; I doesn't seem that > esr ever shipped it with tarballs, but rather only had it around for > personal use. Actually he did at one point ship RFCs, though there was never any point in putting them in version control. Anyway, I think there's value in tracking which RFCs are relevant, even if we don't keep the text of them ourselves. > > Isn't rh-config/ necessary for building the rpm? > > I wouldn't know. :) Me either. -- ==============================| "A slice of life isn't the whole cake Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> | One tooth will never make a full grin" http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X