On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:52 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:38 +0300, Andrew wrote: > > 30.09.2010 19:35, Martin Hejl пишет: > > > So, looking for a different SCM, might be interesting (and > > > possibly/probably provide benefits) - but it doesn't address the issue > > > that we're not providing sources for binary releases in FRS. > > > > Source availability requirements are applicable for all versioning > > systems, or only for CVS?
Everyone, CVS == SCM Per SF Staff, the policy applies to all files released in the FRS regardless of SCM used. > > It's said in rules that "SourceForge.net requires that source code > > releases be made via our File Release System for any binary releases > > made via our File Release System *or any other project resource* . The > > presence of matching source code within CVS does not meet our source > > availability requirements. " - and it's right position, because deleted > > files from CVS becomes unavailable at all - instead of other versioning > > systems, where deleted files are still available addressing to earlier > > commits. > > Andrew, > I'll bring this up with SF staff next week, and get a definitive answer > for us. > -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the two and get a better understanding. http://p.sf.net/sfu/hp-phase2-d2d _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
