Re: new SourceForge terms

["Oliver Kiddle" <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk>]

 --- Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:

> This is fairly common practice and doesn't alarm me by itself.  What
> *does* bother me is that I haven't received the currently-required
> email
> notice.

I received it. Perhaps yours went to an old address or got spam blocked
(Yahoo filtered mine into the spam folder).
 
> zsh.org is sort of a distributed entity right now, isn't it?

Er, in what way? It resolves to one place only.

> The only reason to move the mailing lists would be because of the
> problems
> with zsh-announce and general inattention by the sunsite.dk sysadmins
> that
> Geoff mentioned.

Has anyone actually contacted them directly about the announce problem.
They were reasonably prompt (~1 week I think) at sorting out an rsync
problem last November. Being largely self-administrated is one of the
nice things about sourceforge.

> One thing I'd like to do is preserve the contents of the patch
> manager,
> particularly the patches for old releases.

That's the problem with their tracker - you can't back it up easily and
I can't easily stick the data on a floppy to access from home. I'd
prefer to use TODO and BUGS files in cvs to track anything that doesn't
get resolved on the mailing list. As I've mentioned before, the easiest
way to preserve those 3.0.8 patches would be to release a 3.0.8a. Or we
could stick it in CVS as a separate module. When I've wanted to build a
3.0.8 for something I've tended to be too lazy to apply the patches.

> SourceForge released their own site software a bit ago, didn't they? 
> Does
> anyone know of any SourceForge clones?  (Not that we'd necessarily
> want to
> move to such a site over any other host, but I'm curious.)

GNU's Savannah is the only one I know of where they took SourceForge's
source and forked it. The only other sites I know of are more similar
to sunsite.dk and sources.redhat.com.

> If we move we should of course turn off all write access to the CVS
> on
> SourceForge.  It wouldn't do to have two active repositories.

I'm not actually sure if you can do that without removing access to
everything else. There's only a dozen people with write access at the
moment anyway so as long as they all know.

> Do we have shell access to the actual filesystem of the zsh CVS
> trees?
> (I haven't looked since they rearranged all the servers some months
> ago.)
> If so it wouldn't be difficult to set up a periodic rsync.

I'm not sure about the filesystem. I can't find it but it might be
there somewhere. You can download a tarball of the repository (there's
a link to it from the useful links part of the web pages). If anyone
has a permanently connected machine, setting up a cron job to download
it would useful.

Oliver

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com