[muscle] SV: Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?

  • From: "David Svanberg" <ds@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <muscle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:40:09 +0200

Yes, I can see the problems.

The main benefits having access to a read-only CVS is (my point of view):

- The ability to easy trace changes in files.
- The ability to easy restore old revisions of specific files.
- Have access to the most recent files (alpha/beta/not tested type of
things) before Jeremy takes his time to make a release.

But, hey - it was just a spontanous suggestion! Don't get indignant! - I'm
really happy working with MUSCLE and seems it is terrific that it is public
availiable in the first place! Jeremy is doing a GREAT JOB!

/David

-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: muscle-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:muscle-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]Pa
vegne av Jeremy Friesner
Sendt: 7. august 2003 21:56
Til: muscle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Emne: [muscle] Re: MUSCLE in public downloadable repository?


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





Other related posts: