From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:08:42 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] Re: TUHS Digest, Vol 6, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: <20031112020007.248411FD1@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20031112020007.248411FD1@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20031112030842.GA26882@work.bitmover.com> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:39:23 -0800 (PST) > From: Kenneth Stailey > Subject: Re: [TUHS] 32V/I portability > To: macbiesz at optonline.net, tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Message-ID: <20031112013923.70852.qmail at web60509.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > --- macbiesz at optonline.net wrote: > > You could set up a Sourceforge project for 32/I? > > > > Maciek > > Anything but Sourceforge. You will rue the day you chose them. Don't take my If someone gives me a pointer to the tarballs I'll happily import them into BitKeeper and set up a 32vi.bkbits.net that anyone can use. Unlike sourceforge, we're about quality, not quantity, but even so, we have 1/3 as many files under revision control and no performance problems. It's not really sourceforge's fault, they choose CVS and CVS sucks. As Ted T'so said recently "CVS is not the answer, CVS is the question. No is the answer." :) -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm