On 2012-12-18, at 16:46, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we should be careful about mass-porting of projects.  If you look at original SqueakSource, there are a LOT of projects and a lot of them are junk projects.
> 
> Here with SS3 we have a chance to start fresh with more quality, less quantity.  Leave the old SS as-is with more quantity, less quality.  It's really not hard to set up Account + Projects at SS3, but just enough that we will end up with new, active projects.
> 
> I know you say its nice to have just one place to go looking for code -- ahem, but you already know SS3 is not the answer to that..  Either way we intend to keep the original SS up and running right?

IMHO it would be convenient if old package URLs continued to work, but I see no point in keeping it active (allowing uploads) indefinitely.

- Bert -

> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> On 2012-12-18, at 15:02, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On 18 December 2012 13:45, Chris Cunnington
>> > <smalltalktelevision at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> - we are talking to the managers of squeaksource.com about how to provide
>> >> facilities to help people move projects to SqueakSource3.
>> >
>> > People can already very easily port any repositories to which they
>> > have read rights:
>> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/migrating-projects-to-squeaksource3/
>> >
>> > What facilities beyond these are we missing?
>> >
>> > frank
>> 
>> 
>> For one, this does not preserve meta data. But more importantly we're concerned about the long-term availability of the stuff stored there that is *not* copied to ss3. This just didn't make it into the minutes. So we're talking to the people for how to ensure that no data is lost should they decide to discontinue their service.
>> 
>> - Bert -