RH vs SF

RH vs SF

[Stan Shebs]

So it seems that the sourceforge site is up and running smoothly, no?
(I looked around, seemed OK). If so, then we need to consider what
to do with the bits at Red Hat. At the very least, everything there
should go into a readonly mode, with forwarding to the SF site, so
as to prevent inadvertant forking.

A bigger project would be to copy the old repository and mail
archives. I can ask RH's "overseers" about how to get the data, dunno
about splicing CVS history into SF's repository. I doubt RH will be
willing to host pickled project files indefinitely, so we would need
to decide whether anybody cares about the old CVS history, and if so,
how/where to store it.

Stan

Re: RH vs SF

[Eric McDonald]

Hi Stan,

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Stan Shebs wrote:

> So it seems that the sourceforge site is up and running smoothly, no?

For the most part.

> to do with the bits at Red Hat. At the very least, everything there
> should go into a readonly mode, with forwarding to the SF site, so
> as to prevent inadvertant forking.

Sounds reasonable.

> A bigger project would be to copy the old repository and mail
> archives. I can ask RH's "overseers" about how to get the data, dunno
> about splicing CVS history into SF's repository. 

I would recommend a separate 'xconq-old' top-level module. The 
locations (and names) of some files have changed, and it probably 
make any splicing task rather challenging. If I had access to 
the RCS files on SF, I would consider taking up the challenge of 
merging the history directly into the existing 'xconq' module. 
However, I don't, _only the SF admins have that access, AFAIK. If 
you can get the RCS files from RH, we can ask the SF admins to 
pull them into 'xconq-old' or something like that. The SF docs 
advertize that their admins are willing to do such things for a 
project.

Eric

P.S. If you want to be a project admin for Xconq on the SF site, 
let me know the SF username I should add. It's your project, so I 
think you should be an admin....