On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Barry Rowlingson
b.rowling...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote:
...
http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/website/
and apart from not displaying index.html files on directories I reckon
it should be almost usable from that URL. Of course it will be happier
when stuck on
Barry,
I have updated the DNS entry for 2013.foss4g.org to point to our WebExtra
VM, checked out the site there, and setup the apache config to serve it.
Once the DNS propogates you should be able to find the site there.
Not too surprisingly the search box doesn't work. Is there much other
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Anne Ghisla a.ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Same from me. If you find a valuable tool and wish to have an OSGeo
instance of it, let Board/SAC know.
I've not seen anything OpenSource that looks as good for team work as
the glossy advertising promise of OpenAtrium:
years' archives
__
Steven
From: Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving
Date: 4 December 2013 15:57:01 GMT
To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
As for the Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-is, but what should
The Cookbook, Lessons Learned, and the recent 2013 summary have been the most
valuable for us.
The archive may have some value as a historical artifact, but that kind of
higher level stuff is far more valuable. The day to day discussion threads
simply do not matter.
And I'm with Steven,
The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:
1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
mapgallery images: 74Mb
2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb
3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc
4. Google Docs: ???Mb
I'm responsible for 1
There's already a repository for 2013 at
http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
documents at present that I uploaded at the start of the process). I'm
currently wgetting the basecamp project that we were using, so I can verify
that we will also be archiving
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jo Cook joc...@astuntechnology.com wrote:
There's already a repository for 2013 at
http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
documents at present that I uploaded at the start of the process). I'm
currently wgetting the basecamp
As for the Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-is, but what should
be done is to extract out the individual parts (docs, raw logos) then
upload them individually to SVN, and then move the discussions into
OSGeo wiki pages. Of course this is much easier to do from the
beginning of the event
I disagree completely about the basecamp archive. The whole purpose of what
I'm doing at the moment is to archive it in a useful format, with
discussion threads linking to files rather than a bunch of wiki pages. I
appreciate that preserving things on the wiki is a good idea, and that's
what we
On 12/04/2013 08:00 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jo Cook joc...@astuntechnology.com wrote:
There's already a repository for 2013 at
http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
documents at present that I uploaded at the start of
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com wrote:
The size in general is not an issue. You're right that sticking that
much in svn is usually a pain, but not if it's one time deal. This is a
good question for the System Admin Committee to ponder though. I think
12 matches
Mail list logo
