Chris McCormick wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 11:50:00AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Chris McCormick wrote:
- IEM? (is this an option?)
pros: cons: lots of work for IOhannes.
- savanna.nongnu.org
pros: cons:
- Rent a dedicated server.
pros: we have total control. cons: we have to install and set up. costs money.
i do not fully understand the difference between 1. and 3. we could rent a dedicated server at the IEM :-)
We can? Ok. If we rent, we would need to evaluate the different options for price, features, etc.
organizatorical i don't know whether this would be possible (from the university side).
but puredata.info _is_ a dedicated server (not just a vhost or something). so the difference between 1 and 3 is, that the iem pays for #1 while somebody else would have to pay for #3.
i have the impression (being administrator of this server), that we (that is: the pd-community) do have full control of puredata.info. obviously not everybody has root access to this machine, but i doubt whether it would be a good idea to give everyone root-access to a rented server (#3).
I was under the impression that the IEM option was IEM donating server resources with yourself doing the administration.
yes you are correct, but how does this differ from 3 (see above)
as for savanna: how is this different from just staying at sourceforge?
We know the SF sucks. Do we have evidence that Savanna sucks?
i do not have evidence that savanna sucks. but i'd rather have evidence that it does not suck, before going there.
Let's add an option:
- Stay at sourceforge but transition to SVN.
pros: easy. cons: SF sucks.
honestly, i think it does not suck so badly. (they _did_ have hardware problems last year, which was unbearable; but this could happen to every hoster, be it savanna, iem or sourceforge.)
i still vote for either staying at sf or going to iem. the main reason for this is the user-migration.
somebody should come up with a good layout ofthe svn-repository (actually i think that this is the point where all the former attempts died)
and finally one call for help to all those subversion/ldap experts out there: an administrative problem i do have at puredata.info is, how to handle permissions (that is: write-access to sub-branches of the repository) effectively. i would like to give a diffuse group of "developers" (which are all members of an LDAP-group) write access to the entire repository, except for some special branches, e.g. pd-vanilla, where only miller (and some admins) have write access. i guess the simplest way to acchieve the latter (special permissions on sub-trees) would be to just manage an access.conf file via the puredata.info homepage.
for the former, does anybody know how to handle ldap-groups in subversion? is this possible at all??
mfga.sdr IOhannes