On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:04:55AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >Axel Thim of ATrpms.net has contacted us and offered to fund the domain > >autofs.org and provide web, lists, CVS/subversion infrastructure under the > >same resourse structure as ATrpms.org. > > > >Can we discus the oppertunities, implications, our needs and any other > >issues please. > > > >I believe Axel is present to take part in the discussion. > > > > I have several objections to this proposal. > > First of all, I still want the full autofs rewrite -- autofs 5 -- done > at some point, and I think this infrastructure would be in the way.
OK, then the infrastructure would have had totally failed its purpose. The offer was about easying developers' work and have a place to gather documentation. Why do you think the infrastructure will fail? > As far as BK is concerned, the license is absolutely facist since it > bans you from doing open source development in certain areas. For > obvious reasons this is unacceptable to me. I didn't want to place it into such wordings, but I agree. ;) My personal suggestion is to go with subversion. But even CVS is not a blocker (if there is no consensus on something else) as it can still be upgraded to subversion at a later point in time. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
