new SourceForge terms

new SourceForge terms

[Zefram]

SourceForge are changing their terms and privacy policy.  As far as I
can see, the substantive changes are:

1. They can henceforth change the terms without notice, just by posting
   the new terms on the website.  (Currently they are obliged to give
   15 days notice by email, a period that we are currently in for this
   change.)

2. They can henceforth remove user accounts without giving a reason.
   (Currently they are obliged to have a reason, though the set of
   acceptable reasons is open-ended.)

3. They're no longer obliged to make the contents of a deleted account
   available to its owner.  (There was previously a "reasonable effort"
   clause to that effect.)

4. They're no longer obliged to provide notice of changes to the privacy
   policy, unless the changes are "substantive".  (Currently they are
   obliged to provide notice of any change.)

5. The privacy policy is acquiring a disclaimer that amounts to "this
   is not true".  It actually disclaims the entire privacy policy.

Do we want to keep zsh hosted at SourceForge?  For me personally, item 1
alone is enough to want to remove my account.  Item 5 also seems pretty
serious, and 2-4 are dangerous.

-zefram

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 05:00:04PM +0000, Zefram wrote:
>SourceForge are changing their terms and privacy policy.  As far as I
>can see, the substantive changes are:
>
>1. They can henceforth change the terms without notice, just by posting
>   the new terms on the website.  (Currently they are obliged to give
>   15 days notice by email, a period that we are currently in for this
>   change.)
>
>2. They can henceforth remove user accounts without giving a reason.
>   (Currently they are obliged to have a reason, though the set of
>   acceptable reasons is open-ended.)
>
>3. They're no longer obliged to make the contents of a deleted account
>   available to its owner.  (There was previously a "reasonable effort"
>   clause to that effect.)
>
>4. They're no longer obliged to provide notice of changes to the privacy
>   policy, unless the changes are "substantive".  (Currently they are
>   obliged to provide notice of any change.)
>
>5. The privacy policy is acquiring a disclaimer that amounts to "this
>   is not true".  It actually disclaims the entire privacy policy.
>
>Do we want to keep zsh hosted at SourceForge?  For me personally, item 1
>alone is enough to want to remove my account.  Item 5 also seems pretty
>serious, and 2-4 are dangerous.

FWIW, I'd be willing to host zsh on sources.redhat.com.  As one of the
site administrators, I can provide web space, ftp space, cvs access, and
mailing lists.

I can also redirect zsh.org to sources.redhat.com, if required.

It would be a privilege to be able to be able provide some service in
exchange for all of the happy years that I've been using zsh.

FWIW, we don't have anything like the privacy policy that you mention able
and I don't anticipate that we ever will.  I can't make any guarantees,
of course, but I'd be pretty surprised if anything like that came
to pass.

cgf

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Clint Adams]

> Do we want to keep zsh hosted at SourceForge?  For me personally, item 1
> alone is enough to want to remove my account.  Item 5 also seems pretty
> serious, and 2-4 are dangerous.

I think Oliver touched on the practical points in 16240; we can all
back up the CVS repository, and do minimal reconstruction should things
go extremely awry.

I think we'd probably have little to lose by pre-emptively moving to
savannah/subversions at gnu.org, however, and it seems a pretty good bet
that corporate whims will not be threatening their quality of their
services.

If we are willing to forego the other SourceForge services as well,
I'm pretty sure I could find us several other places to keep our CVS
repository.

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Zefram]

Clint Adams wrote:
>I think Oliver touched on the practical points in 16240; we can all
>back up the CVS repository, and do minimal reconstruction should things
>go extremely awry.

This was always wise, and makes the deletion-without-notice clause less
of a problem for us than it is for many other people, but I argue that
the present change to the notice provision in the T&Cs *is* things going
extremely awry.  (It lets Bad Things happen without notice.)

>If we are willing to forego the other SourceForge services as well,
>I'm pretty sure I could find us several other places to keep our CVS
>repository.

We've never been particularly reliant on the other services, fortunately.
We have an existing network of source release mirrors, web pages hosted
independently, mailing lists hosted independently, and we've always
managed bug tracking primarily on the mailing list.

-zefram

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 07:25:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>FWIW, I'd be willing to host zsh on sources.redhat.com.

I should point out that sources.redhat.com is not really a "corporate"
site per se.  Red Hat does pay for the connection and the hardware but it
doesn't exercise much editorial control.  The system is maintained by
people inside and outside of Red Hat.

If it matters...

cgf

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Peter Stephenson]

Zefram wrote:
> SourceForge are changing their terms and privacy policy.
>
> Do we want to keep zsh hosted at SourceForge?  For me personally, item 1
> alone is enough to want to remove my account.  Item 5 also seems pretty
> serious, and 2-4 are dangerous.

I strongly suspect that this is legal poking around, and nothing is
actually going to change because it wouldn't do Sourceforge any good;
lawyers love adding phrases like `we reserve the right to slay all
users' wherever they think they can get away with it.  I would want to
see some evidence of more than rewording, however apparently
unfavourable, before deciding it's necessary to move.

If enough people want to move strongly enough, we're in a pretty good
position to be able to do so, however.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Oliver Kiddle]

 --- Clint Adams <clint@zsh.org> wrote:

> > Do we want to keep zsh hosted at SourceForge?  For me personally,
> item 1
> > alone is enough to want to remove my account.  Item 5 also seems
> pretty
> > serious, and 2-4 are dangerous.

None of the items particularly bother me - we'll still hear about
changes to the terms and could remove our accounts fairly fast if need
be. I don't have any particular objections to moving the zsh hosting
though either.

> I think we'd probably have little to lose by pre-emptively moving to
> savannah/subversions at gnu.org, however, and it seems a pretty good
> bet
> that corporate whims will not be threatening their quality of their
> services.

I'd have reservations about using savannah. When it was new, they only
allowed GPL programs and though I think that has changed, I'd feel that
we'd not be entirely welcome. For cvs, it might be best to first ask
Sunsite Denmark seeing as they already host the mailing lists and web
pages. If not there then the sources.redhat offer is very generous. 

> If we are willing to forego the other SourceForge services as well,
> I'm pretty sure I could find us several other places to keep our CVS
> repository. 

I don't care about losing the tracker. The compile farm is useful but
we could leave the project open on sourceforge for anyone who doesn't
mind keeping their sf user account. We should ensure that we have some
way of taking backups of the cvs repository though. I'd also miss the
cvs daily snapshots when I only have access through a web proxy server
(such as now).

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

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Geoff Wing]

Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk> typed:
:                               For cvs, it might be best to first ask
: Sunsite Denmark seeing as they already host the mailing lists and web
: pages.

Note, we've still a problem with zsh-announce (as in, to my knowledge, it
hasn't been available to us for a while because moderation confirmation
isn't working) that's also a point for consideration.

Regards,
Geoff

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Bart Schaefer]

On Feb 13,  5:00pm, Zefram wrote:
}
} SourceForge are changing their terms and privacy policy.  As far as I
} can see, the substantive changes are:
} 
} 1. They can henceforth change the terms without notice, just by posting
}    the new terms on the website.  (Currently they are obliged to give
}    15 days notice by email, a period that we are currently in for this
}    change.)

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.

} 2. They can henceforth remove user accounts without giving a reason.
} 3. They're no longer obliged to make the contents of a deleted account
}    available to its owner.  (There was previously a "reasonable effort"
}    clause to that effect.)

What worries me about these two is that it sounds like they're setting up
to be able to pull the plug on the whole service without having to stay
on-line after the decision is made.  If there's any reason to move the
repository elsewhere, that would be it.

} 4. They're no longer obliged to provide notice of changes to the privacy
}    policy, unless the changes are "substantive".  (Currently they are
}    obliged to provide notice of any change.)
}   
} 5. The privacy policy is acquiring a disclaimer that amounts to "this
}    is not true".  It actually disclaims the entire privacy policy.

These don't bother me, but only because I haven't and wouldn't trust them
with any information I considered private in the first place.

On Feb 13,  7:25pm, Christopher Faylor wrote:
}
} FWIW, I'd be willing to host zsh on sources.redhat.com.  As one of the
} site administrators, I can provide web space, ftp space, cvs access, and
} mailing lists.
} 
} I can also redirect zsh.org to sources.redhat.com, if required.

zsh.org is sort of a distributed entity right now, isn't it?

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.

On Feb 14, 12:41am, Zefram wrote:
}
} We've never been particularly reliant on the other services, fortunately.

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

} We have an existing network of source release mirrors, web pages hosted
} independently, mailing lists hosted independently, and we've always
} managed bug tracking primarily on the mailing list.

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.)

On Feb 14, 11:07am, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
} 
} I don't care about losing the tracker. The compile farm is useful but
} we could leave the project open on sourceforge for anyone who doesn't
} mind keeping their sf user account.

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.

} We should ensure that we have some way of taking backups of the cvs
} repository though. I'd also miss the cvs daily snapshots when I only
} have access through a web proxy server (such as now).

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.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net   

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Clint Adams]

> 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.)

http://savannah.gnu.org/
However, since the sourceforge code is allegedly awful, they are
planning to replace it with something involving phpGroupWare.

I don't know of any others.

> Do we have shell access to the actual filesystem of the zsh CVS trees?

I don't believe so.

> (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.

Doesn't look likely.

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Oliver Kiddle]

 --- 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

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Clint Adams]

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

I think what he means is that our web site is hosted in AU,
our mailing lists in DK, and our CVS in the US.

> 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.

I'll do this and keep about a week's rotation; I can make this
publicly-accessible too, if anyone sees the need.

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Bart Schaefer]

On Feb 14,  5:34pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
}
}  --- 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).

Last mail I had from s(ource)?f(orge)?\.net was Jan 22, which is lot more
than 15 days ago.  But it worked then.

} > zsh.org is sort of a distributed entity right now, isn't it?
} 
} Er, in what way? It resolves to one place only.

Right, but the pages you get at www.zsh.org just direct you off to
zsh.sunsite.dk and mirrors for anything useful (other than the list
archives).  There's no point in redirecting zsh.org to the sources
site unless we're going to move _everything_ to the same place.

} > 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.

That's separate from the patch manager, but in general I agree.  It's
just harder to get anyone to keep the TODO and BUGS files up to date.

} As I've mentioned before, the easiest way to preserve those 3.0.8
} patches would be to release a 3.0.8a.

Sigh, yes.  Maybe I'll find time for it soon.  (Right now I'm dealing
with changing ISPs for brasslantern.com because my current one has
dropped dial-up support without reducing the web hosting fees.)

} Or we could stick it in CVS as a separate module.

You mean stick the patches in CVS, or stick 3.0.x in CVS?

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net   

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:33:19PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
>> 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.)
>
>http://savannah.gnu.org/
>However, since the sourceforge code is allegedly awful, they are
>planning to replace it with something involving phpGroupWare.
>
>I don't know of any others.

<<Waving hand in the air>>

I've already volunteered sources.redhat.com, which is a somewhat similar
system, but it sounds like no one is interested.

cgf

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Bart Schaefer]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I've already volunteered sources.redhat.com, which is a somewhat similar
> system, but it sounds like no one is interested.

We're interested, we're just still debating whether to move right now.
Certainly sources.redhat.com looks like a good spot to me, if we do decide
to move.

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Clint Adams]

> I've already volunteered sources.redhat.com, which is a somewhat similar
> system, but it sounds like no one is interested.

I infer from
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi

that public keys are required for CVS access.  Is that true?

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 05:07:43PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
>> I've already volunteered sources.redhat.com, which is a somewhat similar
>> system, but it sounds like no one is interested.
>
>I infer from
>http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi
>
>that public keys are required for CVS access.  Is that true?

For write access to the repository, yes.  Not for anonymous access.

cgf

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Clint Adams]

> For write access to the repository, yes.  Not for anonymous access.

How many public keys can be authorized per user, and how automated
is the addition and removal of those keys?

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 05:21:20PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
>> For write access to the repository, yes.  Not for anonymous access.
>
>How many public keys can be authorized per user, and how automated
>is the addition and removal of those keys?

Unfortunately, right now the addition of new keys isn't automated.  It's
been on my to-do for a while to automate things but, for now, it all
goes through me, or one of the other "volunter sysadmins".

I should mention that all of the maintenance of the site is done by
volunteers.  There is no professional staff other than that.

cgf

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Clint Adams]

> Unfortunately, right now the addition of new keys isn't automated.  It's
> been on my to-do for a while to automate things but, for now, it all
> goes through me, or one of the other "volunter sysadmins".
> 
> I should mention that all of the maintenance of the site is done by
> volunteers.  There is no professional staff other than that.

I'd have reservations about moving to such a system.  With SF,
evil as it is, I can add and remove SSH1 and SSH2 keys by merely
suffering through a web GUI and then waiting for the next hit of the
cronjob.  More importantly, I can use my password in lieu of any such
key, which is important since I only use keys on 2 of the 6 machines
from which I do zsh commits.

A quick look at Savannah reveals that the only support SSH1 keys, but
the cronjob is hourly.

cvs.debian.org would also be problematic in terms of lack of automation
for non-developers, and I think the same is true for any other alternate
I can imagine.

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:03:04PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
>>Unfortunately, right now the addition of new keys isn't automated.
>>It's been on my to-do for a while to automate things but, for now, it
>>all goes through me, or one of the other "volunter sysadmins".
>>
>>I should mention that all of the maintenance of the site is done by
>>volunteers.  There is no professional staff other than that.
>
>I'd have reservations about moving to such a system.  With SF, evil as
>it is, I can add and remove SSH1 and SSH2 keys by merely suffering
>through a web GUI and then waiting for the next hit of the cronjob.
>More importantly, I can use my password in lieu of any such key, which
>is important since I only use keys on 2 of the 6 machines from which I
>do zsh commits.

Ok.  I'm not going to push this, obviously.  I will point out that we
are supporting 440 people currently.  I didn't think that zsh had that
many developers where something like this would be a big issue.  If
it does have a huge number of developers then maybe sources.redhat.com
isn't a good place for it.

We get very few requests to change ssh keys on any of the projects that
we host, so I guess this has never been an issue.

cgf

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Bart Schaefer]

On Feb 14,  8:03pm, Clint Adams wrote:
} Subject: Re: new SourceForge terms
}
} > Unfortunately, right now the addition of new keys isn't automated.  It's
} > been on my to-do for a while to automate things but, for now, it all
} > goes through me, or one of the other "volunter sysadmins".
} > 
} > I should mention that all of the maintenance of the site is done by
} > volunteers.  There is no professional staff other than that.
} 
} I'd have reservations about moving to such a system.

Just for the record, it wouldn't bother me at all.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net   

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Sven Wischnowsky]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Feb 14,  8:03pm, Clint Adams wrote:
> } Subject: Re: new SourceForge terms
> }
> } > Unfortunately, right now the addition of new keys isn't automated.  It's
> } > been on my to-do for a while to automate things but, for now, it all
> } > goes through me, or one of the other "volunter sysadmins".
> } > 
> } > I should mention that all of the maintenance of the site is done by
> } > volunteers.  There is no professional staff other than that.
> } 
> } I'd have reservations about moving to such a system.
> 
> Just for the record, it wouldn't bother me at all.

Nor me.


Bye
  Sven

-- 
Sven Wischnowsky                          wischnow@berkom.de

Re: new SourceForge terms

[DervishD]

    Hello Christopher :)

>>http://savannah.gnu.org/
>>I don't know of any others.
><<Waving hand in the air>>

    I think that the sources.redhat.com would be a better
alternative, since you are an admin and surely Zsh will be better
cared of ;)))

>I've already volunteered sources.redhat.com, which is a somewhat
>similar system, but it sounds like no one is interested.

    I'm really surprised...

    Raúl

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Peter Stephenson]

another piece of mail that was supposed to go the list but didnt...

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Ok.  I'm not going to push this, obviously.  I will point out that we
> are supporting 440 people currently.  I didn't think that zsh had that
> many developers where something like this would be a big issue.  If
> it does have a huge number of developers then maybe sources.redhat.com
> isn't a good place for it.

There are currently only 14 people with write access to the repository,
so I don't think we would cause much disruption.  It looks a sensible
place to move to, but I don't think there's any overriding reason to
move as yet.

Now talking of sources.redhat.com, if I could work out why Norton
Antivirus just quarantined my cygwin1.dll, I'd be a lot happier...

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

Re: new SourceForge terms

[Oliver Kiddle]

--- Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com> wrote:

>   It looks a sensible
> place to move to, but I don't think there's any overriding reason to
> move as yet.

It might save us going through the whole discussion again next time
VA's lawyers decide they need to justify their no doubt exorbitant
fees.

Basically, though I don't care whether we move it. I'm not bothered
either about the ssh key thing.

Bart wrote:

> } Or we could stick it in CVS as a separate module.
> 
> You mean stick the patches in CVS, or stick 3.0.x in CVS?

I meant 3.0.x. If making a release is a hassle, we could put it in CVS,
I could update the script which takes daily snapshots to include 3.0.x
and we could direct anyone wanting to use 3.0 to that. That also solves
the issue of any future patches.

Clint wrote:
> I'll do this and keep about a week's rotation; I can make this
> publicly-accessible too, if anyone sees the need.

Thanks. I don't really see a need for it to be publicly accessible.
Only if/when we actually need it.

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