From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18090 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2004 02:06:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18024 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 02:06:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.198.39) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 02:06:18 -0000 Received: from [192.168.181.128] (unknown[67.176.41.158](misconfigured sender)) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004111002061701500ke9o8e>; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:06:17 +0000 Message-ID: <4191777B.7060104@phy.cmich.edu> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:54:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xconq7 Subject: New Home for Xconq Project? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg01399.txt.bz2 Hello Xconquerors, Over the past few months I have had some discussions with various people about whether the Xconq project should be moved to a new host. Although I think that 'sources.redhat.com' has been a fairly decent host, there have been some issues with it: (1) The site has been down at least twice in the past year. (2) The overseers have been unresponsive to inquiries regarding access to the bug-tracking system. (3) The overseers have been unresponsive to inquiries regarding upload access to the FTP server for one of the developers who did not have such access. (4) It is a fairly low visibility location. Although the Cygwin and GCC projects have some association with the site, it is still not known as being dedicated host for other projects. One might argue that Xconq stands out more because it is among a relatively small couple of handfuls of projects, but I think that there are not enough projects on this site to attract much attention in the first place. (5) A site hosted by Redhat is not "neutral" ground. Even though the Debian folks have, in the past, made Debs for Xconq, there can still easily be an impression that Xconq is a special Redhat project and won't work elsewhere, or at least, not as well. (6) At least one developer has expressed a desire for a different bug-tracking system than the one provided (gnatsweb), even it was set up properly for developers to service it. That said, I am grateful to Redhat for hosting the project, and things like the mailing lists and CVS access have worked fine. I am not aware of any strong arguments for keeping the project at its current location. One could say that it is best to leave well enough alone; but, from my perspective, it is not "well enough". I would appreciate a serviceable bug-tracking system, and I would appreciate upload access to a FTP server for all active developers. Some of the suggestions for an alternative home have been Sourceforge and Savannah (which is hosted by the Free Software Foundation). I have looked into Savannah and it seems like it would get the job done. A number of people have been chomping at the bit to get Xconq moved to Sourceforge; I suppose I should investigate that more deeply in the near future. What I would like to know is: should Xconq move to a better site? If yes, then why? If not, then why not? Also what are the preferences for a new host site, and why? Stan, if you are reading this, I would be curious if moving to a new host is an action that you would approve of. Thanks, Eric