[Coco] NitrOS-9 Web Site
boisy at boisypitre.com
Tue Jan 30 07:45:44 EST 2007
On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> no No NO please no Boisy, the reasons are numerous indeed starting
> with a
> lack of WORKING uptime and availability. I have personally fought
> sourceforge's cvs for as long as 3 days before I was able to to do
> a cvs
> up -dP on the emc2 code base. Even the mailing list is spotty,
> I've had
> 4 messages in a row just fall into a black hole instead of being
> to the other list subscribers or back to me. When Nitros9 was on
> sourceforge before, I was only able to gain access once, the rest
> of the
> time it couldn't find my password or my key. One of the reasons I
> up trying.
I cannot believe SF is this bad. Granted, I don't use it that much
lately, but it hosts a myriad of open source projects; however, it
worked well for me before when we used it to host other projects.
I've never had issues with SF. The ONLY downside that I see with
using it as a host for NitrOS-9 and ToolShed is that I don't have
direct access to the repository to make structural changes. Those
requests must be submitted and acted upon by someone else.
> Sourceforge has much bigger eyes than stomach and they have not
> scaled up
> the hardware to match the traffic. Several projects have been
> moved off
> it in the last year because the developers got tired of no access for
> hours or days at a time. emc being one, has moved to linuxcnc.com,
> maintained by Sherline, one of the companies whose dog is in that
> and its a much better environment. 3 days to do an update on HEAD at
> sourceforge vs a minute:30 or so since they've moved to the sherline
> site. list postings come back on my next mail suck, 90 seconds. emc2
> development is now progressing at at least 100 times its former
> with the core coders often submitting a combined total of 50 to nearly
> 100 patches a day. I get an automaticly generated email for every
> submitted so its easy to count.
Given the S-L-O-W pace of NitrOS-9 development, I don't think that
this is going to matter much. Honestly, I am pretty much the only
person who does anything on the project anymore, and even that's
become a rare event. I would be more inclined to give pause if there
were dozens of active developers on this project, but that is
certainly not the case.
> If sourceforge would get some bigger iron hardware, and more of
> them so it
> could scale up to the level of participation and still function I
> wouldn't have any problems, but I've always had a feeling of impending
> doom simply because in the open source arena, they represent the
> biggest point of failure on the planet.
> There has got to be a better way, even if we have to look at
> while accessing it.
I'll give you the bottom line on this: my time is being increasingly
consumed by other commitments. SF has all of the tools for source
control and project collaboration, it's free, and has a large
exposure. I'm not taking the time to set up a mail server, CVS
server, bug reporting, and then maintaining them all. No way. The
less of my time this eats up, the better. So SF it is.
I got an email from Alan this morning -- he's in France looking for
housing. His server is down and the guy who's keeping it going for
him is out of touch. As soon as that can be rectified, I will get
the CVS repositories off there and have the placed on SF.
More information about the Coco