Jon Daley wrote:
I believe there have been a half dozen offers for hostingsubversion (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.
-Charles