Re: move to sourceforge.net in progress

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adam Spiers wrote:
> Peter, once you've got an account I'll transfer the relevant project
> administrator privileges to you.

OK, I've got an account with the spur-of-the-moment choice of username
`pws'.  Now I need to work out how it works.

I would expect that Bart and Sven would be committing their own CVS
changes.  Those seem to be the obvious choices for now --- due entirely to
where most of the patches and design decisions currently happen to
originate, and no other reason --- though it doesn't need to stay that way,
and anybody it's sensible to add can be added.  I will keep the (much
reduced) workload of adding other people's stuff.

There's also no reason why periodic development versions shouldn't continue
to appear on the existing archive site (= they will).

I'm also less then enthralled about the idea of multiplying experimental
CVS branches, which can get incredibly messy.  To begin with, I think we
should perhaps continue with the policy of just not adding possibly
contentious patches.  At least, what I want to avoid is repeated merges
from experimental branches to the main tree; the world's lunatic asylums
are full of people who've tried that.

I also think it would help solidarity if all patches continue to appear on
the mailing list (this will of course be necessary for anyone other than
the three of us).

> Yep, we definitely need to move all the individual copyrights into
> LICENSE or Etc/LICENSE or something.  That's going to be a fun job for
> someone :-/

As Bart says, the individual copyrights are strictly speaking legal
entities and need to stay there.  I will add a catch-all central licence
(which is how we spell it over here, even if Mandrake's ispell is using an
overseas dictionary), which will make it clear that anything in individual
files takes precedence.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>