1. Use of Source Forge for win32lib
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
2. Re: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:08:04 +0000 (06/23/03 16:08:04)
, Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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?
I'm not talking about the speed of downloading the library, but the
performance of the sourceforge site as a whole. All I meant was that from
the time you press the 'Go' button until the time you can use the site,
some people have mentioned that is unreasonble long. I don't happen to find
it a problem. It takes less than ten seconds for my connection and machine.
> 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?
Because SourceForge has a much higher profile than either my site or RDS.
> What do you mean about S.F. having better functions exactly?
> What is it that makes it seem better?
Good questions.
The bug tracker allows anybody to record the details of a bug and then
track it's resolutionh progress. It is a good communication trail as emails
can get 'lost' sometimes.
There is a separate support request form, which alerts me to an urgent
support request. This also enables your call's progress to be tracked.
Finally, there is a enhancement form. This gives the community and
developers a forum to discuss and otherwise act on the enhancement request.
SourceForge also has news and discussion forums specific to the project and
other general forums. Downloads are easy to find and all previous
downloadable files are also available.
--
cheers,
Derek Parnell
3. Re: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
>From: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
>Subject: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
>
>
>Hi,
>a number of people have said that sourceforge is too slow to be useful.
Not sure where they got that idea from. Even robsz1 doesn't find it too
slow.
>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 recall you saying you didn't like CVS. It's not that hard to setup,
really... If you visit the chatroom, I could walk you through it, or I could
e-mail you the instructions. You might want to delete those old files
though. I could do that too; I'd need developer access, though.
>--
>
>cheers,
>Derek Parnell
4. Re: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:23:44 -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade
<quantum_analyst at hotmail.com> wrote:
> You might want to delete those old files though.
> I could do that too; I'd need developer access, though.
Erm, not sure that is a good idea.
Earlier today I posted a test program showing some clicks and a lost
focus problem.
I had already tried that with a previous version of win32lib (0.55.1)
already on my machine, when I saw your post I decided to try it with
some of the even older ones I had noticed there: the clicks are still
there but the focus is OK in 0.54 (just downloaded from sourceforge),
so at least I've narrowed my search down a bit...
Alright, there are limits, and I'm not suggesting anyone waste time
uploading old rubbish to sourceforge, but you can be too fussy about
keeping the place clean
. Plus, I think you get about sixty versions
of win32lib for one version of, say, Parrot.
Pete
5. Re: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
I only meant deleting the old CVS stuff. The downloads can stay the same.
That was the one of the points of SF, to save all releases you have.
>From: Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Use of Source Forge for win32lib
>
>
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:23:44 -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade
><quantum_analyst at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You might want to delete those old files though.
> > I could do that too; I'd need developer access, though.
>
>Erm, not sure that is a good idea.
>
>Earlier today I posted a test program showing some clicks and a lost
>focus problem.
>
>I had already tried that with a previous version of win32lib (0.55.1)
>already on my machine, when I saw your post I decided to try it with
>some of the even older ones I had noticed there: the clicks are still
>there but the focus is OK in 0.54 (just downloaded from sourceforge),
>so at least I've narrowed my search down a bit...
>
>Alright, there are limits, and I'm not suggesting anyone waste time
>uploading old rubbish to sourceforge, but you can be too fussy about
>keeping the place clean. Plus, I think you get about sixty versions
>of win32lib for one version of, say, Parrot.
>
>Pete
