I'll respond to this and your prior mail ('[agenda] Is CVS
required?') together. It is my opinion, and (AFAIK) the opinion of
virtually everyone I know, and, AFAIK, the opinion of every major OSS
project (save the linux kernel) that CVS is the proper way to handle
distributed development. (Although, in some cases, CVS is pronounced
'bitkeeper.') The only CVS available to me -- that I don't personally
host -- and to the project in general, without our own box and connection
-- is at SourceForge. The Right Way to get source for a project using CVS
is anonymous checkout/update, which SourceForge supports. Quite frankly,
using CVS is not so a high an entry barrier to contributing code that I'm
worried about the coders who will be turned away. Contributing to the
code via the patch manager can be done without a SourceForge account (it
appears), though having one will simplify follow-up emails. In general,
direct CVS write access both requires a SourceForge account and will only
rarely be granted.
I've addressed the issue of contributors to the project. General
distribution we can serve with 'release X' tarballs of the CVS tree and/or
binary packages, as you've been attempting to do, Gilbert. Right now,
the code I'm working on in the JOS project's JJOS repository at
SourceForge is not in any kind of state for a public alpha (much less
beta). As I've said before, once I/we have something worth releasing,
we'll let everyone know and make some distributions.
-_Quinn
_______________________________________________
Kernel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
