On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 03:24:53PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 14:09 -0400, Paul Winkler wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:50:44AM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote: > > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > > >On Thursday 20 April 2006 16:01, Lee Revell wrote: > > > >>On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:51 -0400, Dana Olson wrote: > > > >>>SourceForge is pretty reliable, and I don't see it going > > > >>>down any time soon > > > >>LOL > > > >I wonder what Dana has been smoking? If I still smoked, I'd like to > > > >sample that. I know of one project that left in the last month, mainly > > > >because cvs only worked a few hours a week. Life's too short for that > > > >BS. > > > > > > There are reasons jackaudio.org and ardour.org now exist. As I > > > understand it, sourceforge's persistent cvs access difficulties played > > > no small part in those moves. > > > > My experience with sourceforge leads me to tentatively conclude: > > > > If you have a low-priority project that you work on intermittently, > > with maybe a few other developers, and you don't want to bother with > > setting up any infrastructure (i.e. public repositories and trackers), > > it's very very useful. I'm involved with a couple of projects like > > this. > > > > If you live and breathe some particular project(s), you *will* get bit > > by sourceforge service outages and the inability to really tweak the > > infrastructure to your needs. > > And the insanely long anonymous CVS lag. Oh yeah, that one's really annoying. Me: "It's fixed in CVS, update and try again" User: "Nope, same problem happens" Me: "might be the CVS lag... try again" (repeat) -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
