1. RE: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
> a number of people have said that sourceforge is too slow to be useful.
> I
> want to know if there is any interest in using SourceForge as a primary
> or
> even secondary project place for the win32lib project.
>
> If there is no real interest, I'll have the current SourceForge site
> decommisioned.
>
> If the site's performance is reasonable, it has better bug tracking,
> support, and enhancement request functions than what I'm using now.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/win32libex/
>
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> Derek Parnell
>
When you say it's too slow, you mean it takes too long to
download because they cant supply the demand of bytes/second?
Last time i downloaded a copy, i think i got it directly from
your site (?) and it was quite fast and getting to it was very
straightforward, so why not use that?
What do you mean about S.F. having better functions exactly?
What is it that makes it seem better?
Take care for now,
Al
2. RE: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
Hi Derek,
I do remember when Win32Lib was first hosted at S.F. that it was very
very slow.
I really haven't been to the Win32Lib S.F. page since but I do use
S.F. alot for other software and haven't had any problems at all.
In some (most?) situations it basically comes down to which mirror
you select for downloading.
>From my experience (not Win32Lib experience) S.F. seems like a great
place to host Open Source software.
I seem to remember the secure access to S.F. being very slow???
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
> a number of people have said that sourceforge is too slow to be useful.
> I
> want to know if there is any interest in using SourceForge as a primary
> or
> even secondary project place for the win32lib project.
>
> If there is no real interest, I'll have the current SourceForge site
> decommisioned.
>
> If the site's performance is reasonable, it has better bug tracking,
> support, and enhancement request functions than what I'm using now.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/win32libex/
>
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> Derek Parnell
>
3. RE: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
> From: Derek Parnell [mailto:ddparnell at bigpond.com]
> a number of people have said that sourceforge is too slow to
> be useful. I want to know if there is any interest in using
> SourceForge as a primary or even secondary project place for
> the win32lib project.
>
> If there is no real interest, I'll have the current SourceForge site
> decommisioned.
>
> If the site's performance is reasonable, it has better bug tracking,
> support, and enhancement request functions than what I'm using now.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/win32libex/
I think it would be a good thing if sourceforge were used again (of course,
I started the site, so maybe I'm biased :), since the bug tracking could
prove to be especially useful, and it could also be a good way to spread the
burden of maintenance and upgrading from your shoulders. Assuming it
continues, we should probably create an actual homepage so that users don't
have to wade through the summary pages.
Looking at the releases, you seem to have put the v.59.1 release in 'Hidden'
mode, rather than 'Active'--it doesn't show up in the list of files
available to download. (When in Admin mode, go to 'File Releases' and see
the list of packages at the bottom of the screen.) Was this on purpose?
Matt Lewis
4. RE: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
Derek Parnell wrote:
>Because SourceForge has a much higher profile than either my site
> or RDS.
Hello again Derek,
OH that makes sense now. Sounds like it makes for some free
advertising 
The other features sound interesting too though.
The problems sound like the problems i have with Topica.
Sometimes it wont connect or something. Must be the very
high traffic or something like that.
Take care for now,
Al
