Re: Development model

From: laird popkin <lairdp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Wed Nov 10 2004 - 10:41:46 CST

Personally, I think that SourceForge is a great deal -- lots of
functionality pre-built, for free, but their quality of service can be
iffy. But even if we're a little frustrated with them, I'd recommend
against us setting up our own source code repository, bug reporting
database, etc., until we've got more people (and funding) in place to
support them properly.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:02:16 -0500, David Mertz
<voting-project@gnosis.cx> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2004, at 1:38 AM, Fred McLain wrote:
> > Certainly. If we have a better way to do a developer source repository
> > we need to do it, Source Forge has been a huge hindrance with it's
> > outages and slow response times.
>
> I'm certainly not committed to Sourceforge per se. I agree it's been
> frustrating at times, a different host might be better (possibly one
> OVC itself maintains, or maybe a different public one).
>
> > I'm not sure that is the question here. I don't think anyone has said
> > that volunteers are not welcome. The question I see is would a
> > successful OVC will have development staff? I believe that the answer
> > should, and will be yes.
>
> I got the impression Anand was worried about the possibility of
> volunteers being uninvited when we get paid developers. We're all in
> agreement that that should not happen.
>
>

-- 
- Laird Popkin, cell: 917/453-0700
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:44 CST