Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: new SourceForge terms
- X-seq: zsh-workers 16640
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: new SourceForge terms
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:51:15 +0000
- In-reply-to: <20020213170003.GB30080@xxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <20020213170003.GB30080@xxxxxxxx> <20020214002513.GB5598@xxxxxxxxxx> <20020214003325.GA16091@xxxxxxxx> <20020214004128.GC4463@xxxxxxxx> <20020214004848.GA7310@xxxxxxxxxx> <20116.1013680497@xxxxxxx> <20020214110720.1405.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <a4gbcn$qb1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Feb 13, 5:00pm, Zefram wrote:
} can see, the substantive changes are:
} 1. They can henceforth change the terms without notice, just by posting
} the new terms on the website. (Currently they are obliged to give
} 15 days notice by email, a period that we are currently in for this
This is fairly common practice and doesn't alarm me by itself. What
*does* bother me is that I haven't received the currently-required email
} 2. They can henceforth remove user accounts without giving a reason.
} 3. They're no longer obliged to make the contents of a deleted account
} available to its owner. (There was previously a "reasonable effort"
} clause to that effect.)
What worries me about these two is that it sounds like they're setting up
to be able to pull the plug on the whole service without having to stay
on-line after the decision is made. If there's any reason to move the
repository elsewhere, that would be it.
} 4. They're no longer obliged to provide notice of changes to the privacy
} policy, unless the changes are "substantive". (Currently they are
} obliged to provide notice of any change.)
These don't bother me, but only because I haven't and wouldn't trust them
with any information I considered private in the first place.
On Feb 13, 7:25pm, Christopher Faylor wrote:
} FWIW, I'd be willing to host zsh on sources.redhat.com. As one of the
} site administrators, I can provide web space, ftp space, cvs access, and
} mailing lists.
} I can also redirect zsh.org to sources.redhat.com, if required.
zsh.org is sort of a distributed entity right now, isn't it?
The only reason to move the mailing lists would be because of the problems
with zsh-announce and general inattention by the sunsite.dk sysadmins that
On Feb 14, 12:41am, Zefram wrote:
} We've never been particularly reliant on the other services, fortunately.
One thing I'd like to do is preserve the contents of the patch manager,
particularly the patches for old releases.
} We have an existing network of source release mirrors, web pages hosted
} independently, mailing lists hosted independently, and we've always
} managed bug tracking primarily on the mailing list.
SourceForge released their own site software a bit ago, didn't they? Does
anyone know of any SourceForge clones? (Not that we'd necessarily want to
move to such a site over any other host, but I'm curious.)
On Feb 14, 11:07am, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
} I don't care about losing the tracker. The compile farm is useful but
} we could leave the project open on sourceforge for anyone who doesn't
} mind keeping their sf user account.
If we move we should of course turn off all write access to the CVS on
SourceForge. It wouldn't do to have two active repositories.
} We should ensure that we have some way of taking backups of the cvs
} repository though. I'd also miss the cvs daily snapshots when I only
} have access through a web proxy server (such as now).
Do we have shell access to the actual filesystem of the zsh CVS trees?
(I haven't looked since they rearranged all the servers some months ago.)
If so it wouldn't be difficult to set up a periodic rsync.
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net
Messages sorted by: