On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 17:37, José Fonseca wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:34:24PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > Keith Whitwell wrote: > > >Michel Dänzer wrote: > > >>On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 20:24, José Fonseca wrote: > > >>>On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 06:58:39PM +0200, Dieter Nützel wrote: > > >>>>These sourceforge "backup" server move is very annoying. It's > > >>>>hindering open source so much. > > >>>> > > >>>>Do we have other options? > > >> > > >>>If not then the solution would imply moving the CVS repository to a > > >>>new machine, but where would that be? XFree86.org? > > >> > > >>I've tried to get a discussion going about migrating to XFree86 (and > > >>Mesa, ...) before, without success. Maybe we'll have more luck this > > >>time. :) > > > > > >The migration to mesa is in progress. To XFree86? Well, that's > > >another question. > > > > That sounds more negative than I wanted. Basically, after the drivers > > are living in Mesa cvs, we could well end up just submitting patches > > to XFree86 for the rest - but that would be giving up a significant > > amount of control. Probably we'd always want to maintain an xc/ tree > > somewhere for infrastructure work. > > I mentioned XFree86.org because (supposedly) it has the bandwith and > machine resources to host the DRI repository, and obviously XFree86 and > DRI are two very close entities. That being said, it would have to be in > a seperate CVS repository so that DRI project administrators could have > the same flexibility as in the SF project. Having the DRI repository as > branches in the main XFree86 CVS is an utopia, now and the foreseenable > future, IMO.
Why, what else do we have now but branches of XFree86 CVS, except that they're in a different repository? > But we really need to get a solution around the backup CVS server as it > really damages the beneficial intervention of non-commiters can have > since they are days behind what the commiters are doing. I wonder if it's really such a pressing problem though. How many people have complained? > Is it possible that SourceForge may reconsider that policy on a indivual > project basis, i.e., would'nt it be a good idea for the DRI project > admins to present this issue to the SF maintainers? They usually are > flexible and even if not solving the problem completly maybe they can > point workable solutions. That would be good, but somehow I doubt it. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
