[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: We need to talk about SourceForge

From: Carnë Draug
Subject: Re: We need to talk about SourceForge
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:29:03 +0100

On 18 June 2015 at 05:22, Tatsuro MATSUOKA <address@hidden> wrote:
>> From: Tatsuro MATSUOKA
>> To: tmacchant"octave-maintainers
>> Cc:
>> Date: 2015/6/16, Tue 15:53
>> Subject: Re: We need to talk about SourceForge
> <snip>
>> Detailed information for Gimp project was shown on the above
>>  http://lwn.net/Articles/646118/
> I do not want to stand SourceForge (SF) side but I introduce the below
> Third party offers will be presented with Opt-In projects only
> http://sourceforge.net/blog/third-party-offers-will-be-presented-with-opt-in-projects-only/
> SourceForge Past, Present and Future: Working to Maintain the Integrity
> of Our Open Source Backbone
> http://sourceforge.net/blog/sourceforge-past-present-and-future-working-to-maintain-the-integrity-of-our-open-source-backbone/
> Reading the above, they added adware to a very small number of
> unmaintained SourceForge projects.
> The octave-forge project may not become a target of adware because the
> project is active and maintained.
> However, their statement for what they did Gimp for windows is not
> consistent with statements of Gimp project.
> I think that octave-forge (OF) started to leave SF seeing that Carne and
> jwe started move some contents from SF to Octave core.

Not exactly true.  The move started a few years ago but it's been very
slow.  Even without the sourceforge issues, it's not a bad thing if we
manage to be independent without extra maintenance.

> The remaining issues: (I do not fully understand the issue so that please 
> correct me)
>  1. move version control system for OF packages somewhere else
>   jwe stated that "I think savannah currently only allows one hg archive per 
> project."
>   so that we have to move them to some other place
>    Bitbucket(git and mecurial), Github (git) or somewhere else?
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_source_code_hosting_facilities

Package repositories are not very large and they don't attract a lot
of traffic.  If we don't provide a web interface, it's just a bunch of
clones hosted somewhere else.  And mercurial comes with hgweb which is
pretty good.

Also, we have a policy that an octave forge developer has push access to
all packages so that would maintenance easier.  But no matter how simple
things may be, they do add up quickly.

>  2. maintain  facilities >> pkg install -forge (package name)

octave.org manages redirects for this.  For example, the links


are all redirecting to SF and they can be updated.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]