tor 2006-04-13 klockan 01:55 +1200 skrev Reuben Farrelly:
> Aside from that, I'm seriously in favour of anything which gets away from any
> sort of dependency on Sourceforge. The entire SF anoncvs access has been down
> for over a week with no indication of when it will be back, and this is not the
> first time this year there have been major problems with it. I'll let Adrian
> and Rob fight the specifics of what we move to instead, as long as it's not CVS
> on sourceforge I'm happy ;-)
anoncvs access at SourceForge is not a high priority item for Squid
development. The target audience of this repository is registered
developers with SourceForge accounts. The rest should use the
squid-cache.org repository + devel.squid-cache.org pathes if needed.
Switching to something else than CVS for the main repository requires a
active core team member who knows the VCS system in question
sufficiently well.
Switching from SourceForge to anything else as open developemnts
repository is free for anyone to do. The only reason why the open
developments repository is mainly at SourceForge is because they provide
a very easy to manage framework for registration and rights, and that I
am strongly in favor of using a VCS with a central repository as
publishing point of the ongoing developments so I selected SourceForge
as host for my developments as it met (and still meets) all my
requirements.
I do agree that CVS even with my scripts doesn't really support the
development model we need, mainly because of ugly race conditions should
something fail with the scripts. But it is also worth noticing that
quite a bit of the pain we see today in development with dependencies on
multiple other development branches is actually due to the old Squid-2
code freeze. Development branches honestly isn't meant to stay open for
very long, and should either be merged or abandoned when the author
moves on to something else.
Regards
Henrik
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Mon May 01 2006 - 12:00:03 MDT