From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4911 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2000 20:25:07 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 Mar 2000 20:25:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 19250 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2000 20:24:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10302 Received: (qmail 19236 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2000 20:24:54 -0000 To: zsh workers mailing list Subject: Re: move to sourceforge.net in progress In-reply-to: "Adam Spiers"'s message of "Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:28:21 BST." <20000328012821.A32467@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:24:36 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Message-Id: Adam Spiers wrote: > Peter, once you've got an account I'll transfer the relevant project > administrator privileges to you. OK, I've got an account with the spur-of-the-moment choice of username `pws'. Now I need to work out how it works. I would expect that Bart and Sven would be committing their own CVS changes. Those seem to be the obvious choices for now --- due entirely to where most of the patches and design decisions currently happen to originate, and no other reason --- though it doesn't need to stay that way, and anybody it's sensible to add can be added. I will keep the (much reduced) workload of adding other people's stuff. There's also no reason why periodic development versions shouldn't continue to appear on the existing archive site (= they will). I'm also less then enthralled about the idea of multiplying experimental CVS branches, which can get incredibly messy. To begin with, I think we should perhaps continue with the policy of just not adding possibly contentious patches. At least, what I want to avoid is repeated merges from experimental branches to the main tree; the world's lunatic asylums are full of people who've tried that. I also think it would help solidarity if all patches continue to appear on the mailing list (this will of course be necessary for anyone other than the three of us). > Yep, we definitely need to move all the individual copyrights into > LICENSE or Etc/LICENSE or something. That's going to be a fun job for > someone :-/ As Bart says, the individual copyrights are strictly speaking legal entities and need to stay there. I will add a catch-all central licence (which is how we spell it over here, even if Mandrake's ispell is using an overseas dictionary), which will make it clear that anything in individual files takes precedence. -- Peter Stephenson