support at bezaleel.net
Fri May 5 16:43:43 CEST 2006
Colin Alston wrote:
> Charles McNulty wrote:
>> Jon Daley wrote:
>>> I believe there have been a half dozen offers for hosting
>>> subversion (myself included). Thomas or Charles wrote back to me
>>> and said thanks, but it wasn't needed, and that they expected to
>>> switch to SF's svn at some point. And since I now mirror the cvs
>>> tree in subversion for keeping my own local revisions merged, I
>>> offered to publicize that, but that was also turned down.
>> Well, wasn't me, so it must have been Thomas, but from my perspective
>> I definitely prefer a hosting provider such as sourceforge as opposed
>> to a volunteer no matter how dedicated or experienced they are. The
>> advantages of sourceforge are that 1) They won't burn out from all
>> the work associated with hosting 2) They won't decide to stop hosting
>> over disagreement with the direction of the project or personality
>> disagreements. 3) redundancy in terms of personel. In other words if
>> the volunteer hosting the project is abducted by aliens, we'd be up
>> the crick.
>> Now obviously sf.net has some serious problems. I don't know how a
>> hardware problem could possibly in a million years lead to a month of
>> downtime. And I can't imagine how sf.net imagines that this is
>> acceptable. I'd be open to moving to something else like sf.net
>> (perhaps savannah.org) or switching to svn, but there are too many
>> potential pitfalls to handing off hosting to a volunteer, IMO.
> While that is totally understandable, and I do agree, you should
> understand peoples frustrations since RoundCube is such a very
> promising project.
> The only solution, although not in RC's favor, is that it is branched
> by someone who does have the capacity to provide reliable development
> services to people who are submitting patches or want access to
> bleeding edge code so as to make patches as well as have proper bug
> SourceForge is great, but it leaves a lot to be desired and there are
> also many other tools which allow people to be more productive than
> the in-house SF systems.
> If you're willing at all to hear peoples donations in terms of hosting
> and repo, perhaps it would be at least worthwhile for people to put
> their whole offer on the table.
If your concern is that a volunteer host will disappear/ go out of
business/ trash the system/ refuse to maintain/ etc. - why not perhaps
make use of several of the offers that are on the table? Provide perhaps
a redundant setup where two, three, etc volunteers mirror/host the same
content. If one volunteer decides that they despise RC and/or the the
devs, then let that volunteer go take a long walk off a short pier and
allow the other diligent volunteers to continue to maintain the system.
As I have never dealt with svn, I am not sure of what all is involved in
such a setup - but was just a thought.
More information about the Dev