Re: [H-source-users] future development on savannah

[Ian Gilfillan]

Thanks, I've enabled git (and disabled cvs) on h-client as well.

Do either Damien or bill-auger want to have admin access to h-source 
and/or h-client on Savannah?

Antonio has mostly been unavailable for the last few years, and my own 
time is limited to the minimum needed to keep things going (basically 
spam control and approving anonymous contributions on h-node, and 
occasionally adding a new distro), and this is unlikely to change in the 
near future. I don't want to be a bottleneck slowing things down.

My suggestion is still that the code from h-node is uploaded to 
h-source, bringing the two codebases back in sync. After that, there's a 
clean base to start from, be that integrating a newer version of 
Easygiant with Antonio's help, or another direction entirely.

Question: With both git and Subversion active, how does Savannah keep 
things in sync if there's a commit to both?



On 2019/03/28 10:52, bill-auger wrote:
> .... or perhaps antonio can help merge in the latest version of
> easygiant soon?
>
> i am acting a bit eagerly to get the essential basics settled now,
> because both Ian and Antonio and also Bob from savannah, said recently
> that they would be willing to help get things back on track; but also,
> that they did not have a lot of time to do so - i do not either at the
> moment; but the window of opportunity to get everyone on the same page
> and get the code sitting on a solid base, may be open for only a short
> time right now - the last interaction from ian or antonio was almost
> two weeks ago; so i am trying to keep the momentum going while there are
> still some critical admin tasks up in the air, or at least to keep
> communications going between antonio and ian until there is a some plan
> in place
>
> the client code does not need much admin interaction; but i think
> damien is most interested in the server-side of it - right now though,
> he does not know which code to begin with or which direction to take it
> - with the existing code being a few years old now, at this point its
> not even clear if that is a viable staring point to start working from