On Tuesday 23 December 2003 00:06, Berin Loritsch wrote: > 1) No granularity in the accounts. This is fine for Avalon developers, but > we also include the Cocoon and JAMES development teams for the > component development.
How come? Today we have 4 CVS modules, and wouldn't we just have 2 SVN repos, with different user bases? > 2) SSL is not set up *yet* within Apache infrastructure (please let me know > if this is a misunderstanding). SSL? OpenSSH depends on OpenSSL, so SSL must already be present. CVS uses it, so... > Given the facts above and some of the concerns listed here and elsewhere, I > am starting to favor an all at once changeover to minimize confusion. Agree with "All or nothing"-approach. My suggestion is that we are "not first", and let any initial problems happen to others, who will document and share those aches (if any...hmmhmhm). > I hear nothing but good about SVN. You didn't read about my "adventure"... ;o) > There are binary > distributions available (i.e. already compiled), although they could be > placed more prominently. Describe "available", please. Apparently the summersoft...us server that is hosting the RH binaries (others?) are not coping with the download. I say that it is made a "requirement" for transition, that the binaries are available from high-bandwidth servers (Does IE support "resume" if the connection is lost during download?). Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
