Hi, What about a SVN at goto10.org ? a
2007/7/4, Chris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:56:05PM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > Chris McCormick wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 11:50:00AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > >> Chris McCormick wrote: > > but puredata.info _is_ a dedicated server (not just a vhost or something). > > so the difference between 1 and 3 is, that the iem pays for #1 while > > somebody else would have to pay for #3. > > yep. > > > i have the impression (being administrator of this server), that we > > (that is: the pd-community) do have full control of puredata.info. > > obviously not everybody has root access to this machine, but i doubt > > whether it would be a good idea to give everyone root-access to a rented > > server (#3). > > agree. > > > > I was under the impression that the IEM option was IEM donating server > > > resources with yourself doing the administration. > > > > yes you are correct, but how does this differ from 3 (see above) > > With 1, IEM are involved and you must do the administration. With 3, they > aren't involved, we must pay, and anyone nominated by this list can do > the administration. I don't mind either way, as long as the job gets done > (but I feel bad that the IEM option incurs lots of work for you). > > > >> as for savanna: how is this different from just staying at sourceforge? > > > We know the SF sucks. Do we have evidence that Savanna sucks? > > > > i do not have evidence that savanna sucks. > > but i'd rather have evidence that it does not suck, before going there. > > Yep, agree. > > > somebody should come up with a good layout ofthe svn-repository > > (actually i think that this is the point where all the former attempts died) > > To my mind, migrating to SVN and re-organisation of the repository are > two separate tasks. Why not migrate first, and re-organise second? > > I am happy with switching to SVN on SF, but I am concerned about > Frank's point about there being no fine grained control over directory > permissions. However, is this much worse than what we have now? To me > it seems it's only better because we would be using the feature rich > SVN as opposed to CVS. > > > for the former, does anybody know how to handle ldap-groups in > > subversion? is this possible at all?? > > What do you think of Luke's suggestions? > > Before we do anything, we should make sure that the majority of this > list is happy with the final decision on hosting + source control > software. > > Chris. > > ------------------- > http://mccormick.cx > > _______________________________________________ > PD-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev > -- Alexandre Quessy http://alexandre.quessy.net http://www.puredata.info/Members/aalex _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
