[Anthony Baxter]
> We have the equipment (xs4all has donated 3 machines) and we've been
> assured on multiple occasions that we can't even make a dint in their
> bandwidth, so that's not a problem.
>
> The question is simply whether we'd be better running our own CVS (or
> SVN) server.
Note that xs4all will not allow running pserver (anonymous) CVS. This is
for the same reason pserver access is disabled at zope.org now too: the
history of "security bugs" associated with pserver CVS is dismal.
> The major reason to do this is that the SF anon CVS is awful. Truly
> awful.
It's a hell of a lot more useful than Zope's anon CVS now <0.5 wink>.
> This impacts people who'd like to contribute, but can't get current
> CVS. A while ago, I suggested taking the tarball of the CVS root and
> putting it somewhere, then setting up 'anoncvs.python.org' and pointing
> it at this. Is this still a good idea? If so, I can look at it.
I'm not sure what this suggestion is. Daily tarballs of HEAD, and the 22
and 23 branches, are already available here:
http://www.python.org/dev/
> As far as moving CVS/SVN, if it happens before 2.4(final) I will be very
> cranky <wink>
Good call! Zope's conversion to SVN has been quite bumpy, and there still
isn't a released version of ViewCVS that works with SVN. The "download a
tarball" feature of in-development ViewCVS-with-SVN was disabled (at Zope)
when Jim discovered it sucked up 400MB of RAM to generate a 3MB Zope3
tarball. The Berkeley database often wants an admin to run recovery on it,
and etc: Martin is correct that the major barrier here is sufficient
volunteers to do support and maintenance. Source control systems, and
trackers, require endless care and feeding.
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