On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 06:09:28PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 09:10:27AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > - No subversion (yet?) > > > > I've checked out subversion. > > > > It's more than capable of dealing with the our couple of simple autofs > > projects but could be just what's needed by other autofs contributors. > > Seeing as autofs is open, what's wrong with BK? BK rockssssss
But BK is not open ;) I could also setup BK instead of subversion, I'd leave that to the core developers' taste & decision. On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 06:21:20PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote: > why one app is better than another is the general issues > - and the users should decide and/or even better > if the two systems can co-exists > ( eg sourceforge + sf.net + yet-another-hosting I wouldn't fragment autofs (or any other project) across too many locations w/o a good reason (the reasons are usually that you don't get the services you need at the location you currently reside, for example you need a different SCM). > - only major issue is license terms and use of otehr peoples > machines and connectivity and datacenters > (the marketing/ceo/cfo/laywers are starting to get into the picture I probably forgot to note that the hosting offer is not coming from a commercial company, but the physics department of a university in Berlin (Freie Universit�t Berlin). I haven't see lawyers or marketing folks other that wanna-become students on their way to lunch ;) There is also nobody in my vicinity including me making money out of autofs. Autofs just makes lives of local system adminstrators under Linux nicer, which I cannot enumerate in Dollars or Euros. In return we offer to make development of autofs nicer. :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
