On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 05:34:38PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote: > [Martin v. Loewis] > > What is the reason for not publishing Python 2.0 on SF for download? > > >From BeOpen.com's POV, so long as they were paying major bills, they would > rather have download traffic tickle their ad banners than SF's ad banners. > > >From our (PythonLabs) POV, another publishing site is more work, and one URL > is about as good as any other. Besides, rising to the top of SF's "most > active" list has not been an explicit life goal for any of us <wink>. And here is where the larger community can help. Presuming that non-admins can publish files, then we could take on the burden of publishing the files via SF. > > SF certainly wouldn't be the primary source, but I think at least the > > source distribution should be available there, with the release notes > > telling where to get binary distributions (BeOpen, ActiveState, who > > else?) > > I didn't see any advantage claimed for publishing on SF. Without an > advantage, the work/benefit ratio is infinite. Work == 0 for you guys, presuming that non-admins can publish. [ off to take a look... ] Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4