Re: CVS hosting issues

[Alex Perez]

> nicolas@roard.com wrote:
>> Selon "Chris B. Vetter" <chrisv@web4inc.com>:
>>
>>
>>>Don't hurt me, but...
>>>
>>>Why don't we split GNUstep core and "kits" and host them on two
>>>different servers?
>>>
>>>Keep -core (and everything _closely_ related, like Gorm and
>>> Renaissance) on GNU's CVS and put everything else that can be
>>> considered an _add-on_ like said "kits" on a different CVS that has no
>>> problem with hosting projects with mixed licenses?
>>>
>>>We do have a couple of gnustep.TLD domains and I'm pretty sure we
>>> could use one of them to host those projects...
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think that's a good idea -- less licences problems and imho
>> more clear than actual situation, in that it effectively highlights
>> the available  frameworks (while currently I think many of them just
>> lay down in the cvs...)
>>
>> www.gnustep-kits.org is available, I (or anybody else) could possibly
>> take it  if people agree on that idea. kits.gnustep.org is another
>> option (could be a  redirection too).
>>
>> Proposed policy: keep up to date a list of the existing frameworks,
>> possibly  host some of them, points to the others..
>>
>> Thanks to fabien, here is a list of potential frameworks that we could
>> want to  highlight (some of them aren't ported yet to gnustep) :
>
> Sounds cool... I would say go for: www.gnustep-kits.org

For the sake of site consistency, really we should be using subdomains
instead of registering additional domains. If a site is hosted at
http://kits.gnustep.org its more clear that it's directly affiliated with
the GNUstep project. Why must we register Yet Another Domain Name? I don't
think we should just waste money on extra domain names, especially when
it's not necessary or even optimal.

Just my 0.02 cents..

Alex Perez