Well, the users are specs@ but the board has an oversight responsibility
to avoid IPR contamination.
Thus, where the repositories are, and how they are managed are of
interest and responsibility of the board.
As to the location of the WG repositories are concerned, if we are
allowed to use ones that the WG likes, we probably need to establish a
mechanism to
1) Board approval on the location and the management method of the
repository.
2) Advertise it to the internet (A link from WG main page should be good
enough.)
It should not be complicated, but the mechanism should be well defined
and documented.
=nat
(2009/12/28 15:04), David Recordon wrote:
Agreed with Will. (And this is an issue for specs@, not bo...@.)
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Will Norris <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm not sure that it needs to be either/or. We have the 'openid'
account secured on github, bitbucket, and google code. Let
individual working groups use whichever version control system
they are most comfortable with. Of course the final deliverables
that come out of any working group should be in common location
(such as http://openid.net/developers/specs/), but that doesn't
necessarily mean that they all need to use the same technology to
develop them.
-will
On Dec 26, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> David and Allen,
>
> I suppose we should ask the wider community, so I am including
board@
> in the distribution list.
>
> For those of you who are new to this topic, we have been
> "experimenting/trying a move to" github from svn. However, after
> having used it for sometime, I have started to find some
problems with
> github and it now looks to me that bitbucket.org
<http://bitbucket.org> is a better option
> than github.
>
> The reasons are:
>
> 1. It uses OpenID for web interface login.
> 2. It allows the use of https logins through proxies so it can be
> accessed through corporate firewalls etc. as well. (It is extremely
> difficult to do this for github -- it can be done, but it
probably is
> beyond many people because you need to build a tunnel through the
> proxy.)
> 3. It allows CNAMEs when paid US$5 a month, so that it could be
> accessed as openid.net <http://openid.net>., e.g.,
http://specs.openid.net/ax/ ->
> http://bitbucket.org/openid/ax/ This is kind of vanity thing, but is
> important to establish the "authenticity" of the repository to the
> public.
>
> For our use, I have secured account "openid" at bitbucket.
>
> What would you think?
>
> =nat
>
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Nat <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> One problem that I found about github is that it is very
difficult to
>> configure it to work with corporate proxies. We started to use
github for
>> translation project as well, but several members got stack
there. Do you
>> know of a work around?
>>
>> =...@tokyo via iPhone
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
--
Nat Sakimura ([email protected])
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
