[Sbcl-devel] Re: moving sbcl sources to common-lisp.net

[James B. <ja...@ja...>]

Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes:

> I would like the contributors without developer CVS access to state
> their needs: in the typical lisp way, I ask "what is the actual
> problem"?  If it's distaste for CVS in general, then the solutions are
> different from an admittedly long and tedious outage from the primary
> source of up-to-date data.  (I can't find anything in the mailing list
> about this, apart from a couple of enquiries: let's have some details,
> please!)

As one of the potential contributors in question, the problem is not a
distaste with CVS itself, but the outage itself. I've been using the
arch mirror to track CVS on Linux, but there is no baz client for
Windows (and I admit to having more distaste for arch than CVS, but
that's a topic for another day...)

I'm curious; you claim that there is no guarantee that switching to
cl.net CVS would result in a more stable system.  Obviously there's
andecdotal evidence that cl.net CVS has never been down for as long as
this SourceForge anonymous CVS outage, but what sort of evidence would
you need to feel good about a prospective hosting provider?

At the least, I'd think an anonymous CVS mirror on common-lisp.net
would be a good first step (and also hopefully get rid of the
annoyingly long delay of the SourceForge anoncvs as well).

James