This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: RH vs SF
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Cc: xconq <xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com>, <xconq-hackers at lists dot sourceforge dot net>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:34:01 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: RH vs SF
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....