From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Axel Thimm Subject: Re: An offer to host autofs.org Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 23:50:04 +0200 Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040504215004.GG15656@neu.nirvana> References: <4097DB47.2050603@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============37078323235939781==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4097DB47.2050603@zytor.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: autofs mailing list , raven@themaw.net --===============37078323235939781== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FwyhczKCDPOVeYh6" Content-Disposition: inline --FwyhczKCDPOVeYh6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:04:55AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > raven@themaw.net wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >Axel Thim of ATrpms.net has contacted us and offered to fund the domain= =20 > >autofs.org and provide web, lists, CVS/subversion infrastructure under t= he=20 > >same resourse structure as ATrpms.org. > > > >Can we discus the oppertunities, implications, our needs and any other= =20 > >issues please. > > > >I believe Axel is present to take part in the discussion. > > >=20 > I have several objections to this proposal. >=20 > First of all, I still want the full autofs rewrite -- autofs 5 -- done=20 > at some point, and I think this infrastructure would be in the way. OK, then the infrastructure would have had totally failed its purpose. The offer was about easying developers' work and have a place to gather documentation. Why do you think the infrastructure will fail? > As far as BK is concerned, the license is absolutely facist since it=20 > bans you from doing open source development in certain areas. For=20 > obvious reasons this is unacceptable to me. I didn't want to place it into such wordings, but I agree. ;) My personal suggestion is to go with subversion. But even CVS is not a blocker (if there is no consensus on something else) as it can still be upgraded to subversion at a later point in time. --=20 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net --FwyhczKCDPOVeYh6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAmBAMQBVS1GOamfERAvGlAJ4hdNbsktqB5MeR79n/Td3Gb+TEbgCfWNSv EDyMPqGMgt8u7seo1JY0uoY= =2Crn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FwyhczKCDPOVeYh6-- --===============37078323235939781== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs --===============37078323235939781==--