On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:58:33PM +0100, Branko Collin wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2003, at 21:47, Rapha?l Quinet wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:18:11 +0100, "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > On 30 Dec 2003, at 9:48, Rapha?l Quinet wrote:
> >>> I think that the goal was to move to a better machine
> >>> (better CPU and more memory).  But for the details,
> >>> you should probably ask Yosh.
> >> I think the goal was to have a new website. If you want
> >> to move to a better machine, you don't make a new website.
> >
> > I suppose that Yosh thought that it was the right time to replace the
> > old machine, which shows some signs of weakness from time to time.
> > Anyway, I am just reporting what I read.  Don't shoot the messenger.
> > ;-)
> I am not shooting the messenger, but I also cannot help but notice
> that you have write access to the current webserver. Yosh reads at
> least one of these mailing lists, and has done so for the past three
> months. Barring a disaster, he has had enough time to tell us why
> things are taking so long.
> I vote we don't wait for a new server to come along, because flying
> pigs might bump into it, being disoriented from hell freezing over,
> and then we would need another new server.
> Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer effort. Yosh may have
> had many good reasons to stay silent, but he did not mention it, and
> his inactivity and silence should not be a reason to halt the work of
> an entire group of dedicated developers.

The reason is simple. There is not enough disk on the old server to host
the new site.

I'm surprised nobody has taken the time to address some of the issues
that were punted for later (lack of a good Basics tutorial comes to mind).
Also, with 2.0 coming out somewhat soon, porting things to 2.0 would be
a good idea. None of these things require the site to be moved over first.

> It is not as if people dislike the new site; the only thing that
> remains is replacing the old site with it.

There are voices of dissent.

Also the news stuff is still broken since the move away from SSI (which was
a bad decision imo, SSI has a negligible server load and apache is really
not that hard to set up)

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to