Re: [Flightgear-devel] Service update

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I repeat: You have not shown to have a point against introducing an > official (or 'authoritative') GIT mirror. Please explain to me what you > consider to be unprofessional about this claim ? I have never attempted to ma

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Service update

Curtis Olson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > >From my point of view this is not the correct conclusion. Instead, I > simply assume that it doesn't make any difference wether I complain or > not. So I re

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Service update

"Curtis Olson" wrote: > When I researched the topic, I saw over and over again that the biggest > knock against git is that it does not have good support for windows. That > has been repeated on this list by more than just me. Yes, GIT has had pretty bad Windows support for a long time. Yes, I d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Service update

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > From my point of view this is not the correct conclusion. Instead, I > simply assume that it doesn't make any difference wether I complain or > not. So I remain looking at the regular error messages from the mirror > jobs a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Service update

"Curtis Olson" wrote: > 3. I suspect I need to spend some time reviving the anonymous rsync server, > but I haven't had a chance to look into that yet. No one has complained > though so I assume it is not very popular and thus a lower priority. >From my point of view this is not the correct conc