On 2003-07-15 at 16:17 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: > From what I read at SourceForge, you first have to accept their terms and > conditions, and then they can change this "agreement" at any point. The > way I interpret that is that they can do whatever they want, and that > users just have to accept that. So I do not trust SourceForge for hosting > this project in any way.
I see what you mean, although I do not share your bad feelings for SourceForge. I have two of my own (tiny) projects hosted at SourceForge with no problems so far. On the other hand, there was a discussion on the zsh mailing list recently where somebody has suggested to move the CVS repository from SourceForge to somewhere else (redhat.com?). So at least some other projects have some problems and/or issues with sf.net. > But - to answer your question - yes I have been considering public CVS > access, but I haven't decided wether or not to use another RCS instead, > such as Perforce or BitKeeper. I am very interested to hear this project's > users' experience (pros and cons) with different RCSes. I understand that both Perforce and BitKeeper have some technical advantages over CVS, but CVS is the de facto standand these days, and Binc IMAP will certainly have broader audience with CVS repository, IMHO. > I definitely see the value of providing public CVS, especially when > patches such as these start coming up at a point where I can't (or find it > very hard to) make a 1.1.9 release yet. Agreed. > I guess a compromise is that I can publish the most important (serious > bugfix) patches as they show up, under dl/tarballs, as > bincimap-1.1.8-patch001-openlog.diff.bz2 or something like that. Yes, this makes sense, but as temporary solution, I guess - until there is a CVS repository. Sergei
