On 14 February 2014 10:46, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> On 14.02.2014, at 09:18, Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
>
>> Hi David!
>>
>> On 02/14/2014 02:19 AM, David T. Lewis wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:53:33PM +0100, G?ran Krampe wrote:
>>>> You telling me that you may decide to forbid me from administrating my
>>>> own projects thus taking them from me - makes me want to just go there
>>>> RIGHT NOW and delete all my projects and beating you to it.
>>>
>>> Your projects belong to you, and nobody but you can decide how to manage
>>> them. Period.
>>
>> Good.
>>
>>> <OT>
>>> For my part, I volunteered to move squeaksource.com with the understanding
>>> that I was moving it to a safer home, not copying it to a read-only snapshot.
>>> If we had wanted a read-only snapshot, I would have done nothing at all,
>>> because the previous custodians of squeakmap.com had already committed to
>>> provide that.
>>
>> I think you meant squeaksource.com. Yes. Thus it is NOT an archive, can we agree on that?
>>
>> This is actually the crux I think of us disagreeing on many aspects.
>>
>>> Moving squeaksource.com to its new home took a good deal of time and effort
>>> from me and a number of other folks (including Chris) who pitched in to help.
>>> It was more work than I had anticipated but I think we can all be pleased
>>> with the outcome.
>>
>> I am super happy you did it.
>
> Me too.
>
> Squeaksource.com is a service for providing personal (or shared) repositories. If the owner decides to remove it, it should be her choice alone. Taking over the server does not change that. This is unlike source.squeak.org which is for "official" projects, where we can dictate the rules (and one of them is never to delete old versions).
>
> I seem to hear that people event want to create new projects there. With its new home, that is an option we did not have a year ago. I'm not sure yet whether this is a good idea or not: Let's discuss.

The only real downside I can see is increased load on the same box as
CI. We don't bear the cost (CPU or money wise) of projects hosted on
SS3.

Also, SS3 has had a lot of work done on it, and the codebase is a huge
improvement (at least from a user's perspective) over SS.

But I freely confess my conflict of interest: every cycle that goes
towards hosting projects on squeaksource.com takes cycles away from
build.squeak.org.

frank