On 10/04/11 18:38, Robert Schwebel wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 06:20:43PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> I'd vote for kernel.org. Taken the recent issues aside, it is the >>> central ressource where people search for mainline related code. >> >> But, AFAIK, it's not good for a team of maintainers. > > Well, the whole maintainer system is good for teams; anyone who will > participate just puts his git tree wherever he wants and send a pull > request to "the" maintainer... Another possibility is shared > repositories, which works pretty well with git. However, as the new > policy on kernel.org is not fully clear, I don't know if they support > it. > > But even if the git repo will not be on kernel.org, at least the > mailinglist should move to vger.
Yes. Having the mailing list (call it 'linux-can') at vger.kernel.org would be my favorite too. Regarding to our current SVN i don't see any relevant development in socketcan/trunk/kernel/2.* anymore. Usually this part of the SVN confuses some users that compile the kernel modules in the SVN even on 3.0 systems %-( So this SVN part could be exported into a tar.gz and hosted anywhere 8-) AFAICS we have three requirements (in addition to the ML on vger.kernel.org): - host some files (firmware (softing), SocketCAN logos, etc.) - host the canutils & other tools - have a CAN wiki I would prefer having the CAN Wiki at can.wiki.kernel.org and the rest (files and canutils) on sf.net - which just works ... and if we have links to the different flavours of canutils in the CAN wiki on kernel.org the tools and files could be hosted anywhere (probably even as a media file inside the CAN wiki?). Regards, Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list Socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
