[Sv-migration] Re: [Savannah-hackers] Savannah Migration list <address@hidden>

[Hugo Gayosso]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

address@hidden (James E. Blair) writes:

> We've set up a list to discuss the migration of Savannah to GForge.
> 
> If you're interested, you can subscribe at:

Thanks Jim, I have already subscribed, but I have a question.

After reading the first and only post on this new mailing list, and
after not seeing any discussion on savannah-hackers or anywhere else
regarding the migration.  I wonder who and why was the decision made
to migrate to GForge?

- From that mail in the archives of this new mailing list it seems that
we don't even know if GForge can provide the behavior that is expected
from the current Savannah.

People from CERN, XEROX and others have contributed heavily to
savannah (now savane), and they are using it in those institutions
internally, so I guess that "unsupported" was not a reason to migrate.

I am curious as to why, and I am sure users will be too, what should
we tell the users?  I have seen other savannah-hackers ask this same
question but I haven't seen the answer, did I miss it?


Greetings,
- -- 
Hugo Gayosso
GNU Savannah Support
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAaQ8sMNObVRBZveYRAjstAJ0fUZKd+ooLUSc855H8+zzuzv5jOACeMTDN
xaRZEdxNgBjO95y7d/3wMKg=
=zUUP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----