On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:48:37AM +0200, Bernd Eidenschink wrote: > > > Is it worth considering alternative server, subversion maybe? > > with subversion, do you think of just changing from CVS to the revision > control system "subversion" or to another server with CVS/subversion? > > Looks like the subversion RCS had less outages on SF than CVS, but this might > just be because of less users using subversion on SF.
Switching from CVS to Subversion solely because, at the moment, SourceForge seems to have better uptime on their Subversion than their CVS servers makes no sense at all. For those interested in such things, I recommend checking the Tcl Core list, they are currently discussing exactly these SourceForge issues, planning their "escape plan" from SourceForge in case that should become necessary, whether they should switch from CVS and if so to what, etc. I agree entirely with what D. Richard Hipp said here: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/tcl-core/3124041 However, Naviserver has a MUCH smaller project team than Tcl, therefore Naviserver should be much more reluctant to move from a free hosted service like SourceForge onto self-maintained servers. In fact, I would not recommend self-hosting for Naviserver AT ALL (except for backup). But if there are some other SourceForge-like services, that would be worth looking into, at least as a fallback in case SF's service gets worse rather than better. Surely there are many, many other folks in the same boat though, I wonder what they think? -- Andrew Piskorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.piskorski.com/
