On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:45:40PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >Is its architecture suitable? Each client having a full copy of the
> >repository would be highly preferable, as would a more or less P2P
> >compatible architecture (not needing to connect to a central server
> >for
> >everything).
>
> Well, what is the goal here?
>
> If our goal is to find something more stable than Sourceforge's CVS,
> then Subversion running on dodo is probably the best option.
>
> If it is to do source control over Freenet then I think we are
> talking about a *big* project, and we shouldn't be spending time on
> it right now (it is really something for a third party to work on
> after we have stabilised 0.7).
No, there is ALREADY a port of arch. That means that it must be
relatively straightforward, just as email over freenet is relatively
straightforward. If we leave it for a third party to do after 0.7, and
then after 0.8, and then after 0.9, then it will never get done. IMHO
email, IRC and source control over freenet are vital to involve the
anonymous community in the development of Freenet.
>
> Ian.
--
Matthew J Toseland - toad@???
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
