Re: new SourceForge terms

[Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>   It looks a sensible
> place to move to, but I don't think there's any overriding reason to
> move as yet.

It might save us going through the whole discussion again next time
VA's lawyers decide they need to justify their no doubt exorbitant
fees.

Basically, though I don't care whether we move it. I'm not bothered
either about the ssh key thing.

Bart wrote:

> } Or we could stick it in CVS as a separate module.
> 
> You mean stick the patches in CVS, or stick 3.0.x in CVS?

I meant 3.0.x. If making a release is a hassle, we could put it in CVS,
I could update the script which takes daily snapshots to include 3.0.x
and we could direct anyone wanting to use 3.0 to that. That also solves
the issue of any future patches.

Clint wrote:
> I'll do this and keep about a week's rotation; I can make this
> publicly-accessible too, if anyone sees the need.

Thanks. I don't really see a need for it to be publicly accessible.
Only if/when we actually need it.

Oliver

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com