MTASC has been forked, perhaps you would like to update?

[Paul Wise]

On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 18:04 +0100, Tristan Schmelcher wrote:

> I read over SourceForge's current policy docs and couldn't find any
> reference to their old requirement that projects release source
> tarballs, so I assumed it was no longer required. The source is all in
> SVN of course. I'm not committed against source tarballs though.

It is just standard practice to do so and quite weird to not do so.
Also, if you don't provide tarballs it is hard to know what is the
corresponding source for the binaries (see the GNU GPL).

> I'm aware of Git, though I don't have much experience with it. From
> what I know of Git it sounds awesome, but it also sounds like most of
> its benefits are for projects with large numbers of contributors and
> patches (e.g., the Linux kernel). I don't expect a fork of MTASC to
> have either, so I'm not sure the gains would be worth the migration
> effort.

git is worth using even for a single-person project. I wouldn't start a
FLOSS project using an SVN repository these days. The only thing that
would stop me using git (or other DVCS) would be Windows support, which
some FLOSS people still rely on unfortunately.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20091031/e38da7e1/attachment.pgp