On 8/29/06, Frank Buss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Justin Heyes-Jones wrote: > > > The advantages are the obvious reliablity (both uptime and speed) of > > google infrastructure. (I've noticed a lot of downtime and slowness on > > sourceforge.) The bug (or issue) tracking is very simple, very > > visible, and easy to use. > > Sourceforge has sometimes problems, but most of the time it works. But I > don't care, where the repository is, and you may be right that Google is > more reliable. > > > Downsides are that there is no release mechanism for easy download. > > Casual users may be put off by having to use subversion to get a > > release. Yet theres nothing stopping us putting an automatically > > zipped up release in the subversion database which can then be linked > > to in their web site. > > I don't like the idea of storing release packages in SVN. But we could still > use the Sourceforge file release system (with the worldwide mirrors it > should be reliable) and the SVN-repository of Google. So if there are more > people who thinks it is a good idea to move to Google, feel free to commit > all files to the Google repository, then delete all files from the > repository at Sourceforge and add a new readme file, that says that the > current repository is at Google now. > > The Google system looks very spartanic (in contrast to Sourceforge, which > looks very bloated), maybe we should suggest to Google to add a file release > system? >
OK let's do it then. Over the next couple of days I'll set up a google project and move over the subversion database. As you say there is no reason why we shouldn't continue to use sourceforge for releases. I think it would be useful to add bugs and ideas for new features to the google projects issues database; it's very easy to use. Justin _______________________________________________ application-builder mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/application-builder
