Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
At 03:14 PM 12/30/2003 -0800, you wrote: It is not as if people dislike the new site; the only thing that remains is replacing the old site with it. One possibility for the short term would be to create a redirect from www.gimp.org to the new site. Cheers! Kevin. (http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/) Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172|What are we going to do today, Borg? E-mail:kcozens at interlog dot com|Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: Packet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Try to assimilate the world! #include disclaimer/favourite | -Pinkutus the Borg ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On 30 Dec 2003, at 9:48, Raphaël Quinet wrote: Branko Collin: What I don't understand is why the new site doesn't just replace the old site on the old server? I think that the goal was to move to a better machine (better CPU and more memory). But for the details, you should probably ask Yosh. I think the goal was to have a new website. If you want to move to a better machine, you don't make a new website. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:18:11 +0100, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 Dec 2003, at 9:48, Raphaël Quinet wrote: I think that the goal was to move to a better machine (better CPU and more memory). But for the details, you should probably ask Yosh. I think the goal was to have a new website. If you want to move to a better machine, you don't make a new website. I suppose that Yosh thought that it was the right time to replace the old machine, which shows some signs of weakness from time to time. Anyway, I am just reporting what I read. Don't shoot the messenger. ;-) As I wrote above, ask Yosh for details. I don't own the machine (*) and I don't pay for the bandwidth, so I am already glad that we have something even if I am as frustrated as you are that the new web site has been waiting for the move since more than three months. -Raphaël (*) Note to Yosh or Shawn or whoever owns the new machine: I wouldn't mind donating something for the memory, disk or CPU if this could help setting up the new web site. (Yes, this is a serious offer.) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On 30 Dec 2003, at 21:47, Raphaël Quinet wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:18:11 +0100, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 Dec 2003, at 9:48, Raphaël Quinet wrote: I think that the goal was to move to a better machine (better CPU and more memory). But for the details, you should probably ask Yosh. I think the goal was to have a new website. If you want to move to a better machine, you don't make a new website. I suppose that Yosh thought that it was the right time to replace the old machine, which shows some signs of weakness from time to time. Anyway, I am just reporting what I read. Don't shoot the messenger. ;-) I am not shooting the messenger, but I also cannot help but notice that you have write access to the current webserver. Yosh reads at least one of these mailing lists, and has done so for the past three months. Barring a disaster, he has had enough time to tell us why things are taking so long. I vote we don't wait for a new server to come along, because flying pigs might bump into it, being disoriented from hell freezing over, and then we would need another new server. Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer effort. Yosh may have had many good reasons to stay silent, but he did not mention it, and his inactivity and silence should not be a reason to halt the work of an entire group of dedicated developers. It is not as if people dislike the new site; the only thing that remains is replacing the old site with it. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:58:33PM +0100, Branko Collin wrote: On 30 Dec 2003, at 21:47, Rapha?l Quinet wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:18:11 +0100, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 Dec 2003, at 9:48, Rapha?l Quinet wrote: I think that the goal was to move to a better machine (better CPU and more memory). But for the details, you should probably ask Yosh. I think the goal was to have a new website. If you want to move to a better machine, you don't make a new website. I suppose that Yosh thought that it was the right time to replace the old machine, which shows some signs of weakness from time to time. Anyway, I am just reporting what I read. Don't shoot the messenger. ;-) I am not shooting the messenger, but I also cannot help but notice that you have write access to the current webserver. Yosh reads at least one of these mailing lists, and has done so for the past three months. Barring a disaster, he has had enough time to tell us why things are taking so long. I vote we don't wait for a new server to come along, because flying pigs might bump into it, being disoriented from hell freezing over, and then we would need another new server. Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer effort. Yosh may have had many good reasons to stay silent, but he did not mention it, and his inactivity and silence should not be a reason to halt the work of an entire group of dedicated developers. The reason is simple. There is not enough disk on the old server to host the new site. I'm surprised nobody has taken the time to address some of the issues that were punted for later (lack of a good Basics tutorial comes to mind). Also, with 2.0 coming out somewhat soon, porting things to 2.0 would be a good idea. None of these things require the site to be moved over first. It is not as if people dislike the new site; the only thing that remains is replacing the old site with it. There are voices of dissent. Also the news stuff is still broken since the move away from SSI (which was a bad decision imo, SSI has a negligible server load and apache is really not that hard to set up) -Yosh ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On 30 Dec 2003, at 15:14, Manish Singh wrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:58:33PM +0100, Branko Collin wrote: I am not shooting the messenger, but I also cannot help but notice that you have write access to the current webserver. Yosh reads at least one of these mailing lists, and has done so for the past three months. Barring a disaster, he has had enough time to tell us why things are taking so long. I vote we don't wait for a new server to come along, because flying pigs might bump into it, being disoriented from hell freezing over, and then we would need another new server. Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer effort. Yosh may have had many good reasons to stay silent, but he did not mention it, and his inactivity and silence should not be a reason to halt the work of an entire group of dedicated developers. The reason is simple. There is not enough disk on the old server to host the new site. OK, now we're getting somewhere. Apparently you are one of the few in the know about the web server. What can be done to remedy the disk situation? I heard some story about a new server? How about putting a new disk in the existing server, would that be an option? Is there any way that someone who is not in the inner circle can help? Are you subscribed to the gimp-web mailing list, where the remainder of this discussion belongs? I'm surprised nobody has taken the time to address some of the issues that were punted for later (lack of a good Basics tutorial comes to mind). Well, I have not tackled them because I was quite insulted by all of my work going to waste. Also, with 2.0 coming out somewhat soon, porting things to 2.0 would be a good idea. None of these things require the site to be moved over first. That's true, but actually putting the site live would be the sort of token of appreciation that would actually spur me on to do something. It is not as if people dislike the new site; the only thing that remains is replacing the old site with it. There are voices of dissent. What do they say? Did they post bug reports? -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
hi, On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 03:46:05PM +0100, Branko Collin wrote: On 28 Dec 2003, at 10:33, Shlomi Fish wrote: What is the status of the new site (http://mmmaybe.gimp.org)? Why isn't it the default site yet? Are there any pending problems? As somebody who helped make the new site, or thought he did, I am as baffled as you. There are, it seems, several people who have write access to the web server (Raphael Quinet? Shan Amundson? Yosh?), but nobody is willing to tell exactly who can do what, and they all refuse (for reasons they refuse to disclose) to put the new site live. you will need to go through the sames steps i did. 1) figure out who runs the computer and what resources they have to allocate. 2) determine the information that the user needs and collect it. 3) write a mechanism to build the site that even the most inept beginner can make it at home (after some additional apache configuration that used to be documented there). the site that i eh, collected, fullfilled all of these things and more. if you cannot build software on windows that is not gimp dot org problem, btw that site has disappeared. the current site can be reverted to fullfill the many goals or can evolve (once again) to fullfill this, but the current site is a travesty and a pathetic head up someones ass farce of the site that is there and should not remain even a part of the gimp.org sites. perhaps there is room for it at gamers.org? it seems like it would make a beautiful addition to whatever they have there. until then, the same steps i already covered need to be completed again, one way or another. or you can go by what dave neary says and wait for rapha?l to move it to its new site. oh, he will probably need to talk to the people who run the computer about what they need, expect and the resources they have to allocate. once again, the same steps i already covered that can be accomplished with a simple reversion to the site that is in cvs now. back to may would be fine or even july. my question is this. if i had written better email, would i be allowed to destroy things? i was thinking about doing a number on the gimp cvs source like rapha?l did to the site i designed. would dave neary say that i run gimp now, if i were to go independent and destroy the collective work as he did to the web project? probably if i write very sane email (spell check and all), i would be allowed to do what i wish? thanks for asking, carol ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
