lfetch-devel Mailing List for lfetch
Brought to you by:
lhanson
You can subscribe to this list here.
2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
---|
From: Steven A. <st...@au...> - 2002-05-17 23:47:12
|
I tab-expanded all of lfetch. Did a better job than I did on http-fetcher, actually. Made some documentation cleanups so that it's easier to read. Documentation now notes that the URL will change in June. --Steve |
From: Steven A. <st...@au...> - 2002-03-22 09:31:24
|
The new name is nice. Can you leave behind the remains of the old project by, like, putting up notices on the old web pages? fetch.sourceforge.net still redirects me to cs.nmu.edu/~lhanson/fetch/. On the other hand, lfetch.sourceforge.net gives me the uninteresting page «Index of /». Also, https://sourceforge.net/projects/fetch/ still directs me to a pretty alive-looking project page. Might want to modify the «Summary» section. I'd also encourage you to consider (if you haven't done so already) trying to communicate (email?) directly with the sourceforge administrators to tell them what you're doing (renaming the project) and why you're doing it (because of the existing fetch client). They may have a procedure for this, where they can save you some hassle. For example, they might be able to transfer over the mailing list archive, or transfer over the percentile activity stats. Lyle D. Hanson wrote: > Tonight I finished moving fetch over to its new incarnation as 'lfetch'. > There is a new SourceForge project called 'lfetch', along with a separate > mailing list for that project. I added current developers to the new > 'lfetch' project. The 'fetch' CVS tree has been tagged "moved_to_lfetch" > and the newly named codebase is now living in CVS at the lfetch project > site. Any work should be done on this new project, 'fetch' is dead. > > So join the separate mailing list if interested (although work on HTTP > Fetcher and lfetch are related, for the purpose of making archives more > useful and intuitive I think it's better to have two lists to avoid > confusion down the road). That makes sense. I'd been thinking that would be nice too. --Steve |