[muscle] Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- From: Jeremy Friesner <jaf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: muscle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:56:14 -0700
Hi David,
LCS maintains the muscle source on our private CVS server, along with a l=
ot of=20
other closed-source LCS code. I could ask my sysadmin about allowing=20
anonymous read-only access to the muscle repository if you like, but I'm =
not=20
sure if it's possible to allow that for just one repository (and I am sur=
e=20
they wouldn't want to allow anonymous access to the rest of our sources! =
=20
:^)). I'm also not clear as to what the advantages of read-only CVS acce=
ss=20
would be over just downloading and unzipping the latest released muscle.z=
ip=20
file. Perhaps you can describe what benefits you see in having CVS acces=
s?
Jeremy
>Hey, by the way, why can't MUSCLE reside in a "public" CVS repository?
>
>Wouldn't that be pretty nice?
>
>Cheers,
>David Svanberg
- Follow-Ups:
- [muscle] Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- From: Jeremiah Bailey
- [muscle] SV: Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- From: David Svanberg
Other related posts:
- » [muscle] MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- » [muscle] Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- » [muscle] Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- » [muscle] Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- » [muscle] Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- [muscle] Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- From: Jeremiah Bailey
- [muscle] SV: Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?
- From: David Svanberg