[Spread-users] Public CVS?

[Jon Stevens]

on 9/17/01 11:20 PM, "Ask Bjoern Hansen" <ask at valueclick.com> wrote:

> I realize that; I just wanted to point out that while I agree that
> anon cvs would give a different kind of convenience, then I don't
> think it's worth giving the Spread people hassle over.  If you send
> an oodle of patches I am sure your wishes will have more weight.

Part of the issue is that I'm much less willing to contribute to projects
which don't follow basic OSS development principles. That is like working
for a company that I don't believe in.

First it was the license, and now it is this. It is disappointing to see
these simple things become stumbling blocks.

I really disagree with using the CVS logs of OSS developers commits who are
contributing their time and energy as a means to justify the grants for
which the money goes to unknown people and resources. The grants should come
as a result of a well done and useful piece of software, not as a result of
the number of commits that you or I or anyone else contributes.

Lastly, even with anonymous turned on, it is possible to track how many
people check out a module. From one of my servers anonymous cvs logs:

O3ba168a7|anoncvs|<remote>/*0|village||village

It is entirely possible to say that X number of anonymous downloads
occurred. Wrap the anon public CVS daemon in tcpwrappers and have it log the
IP addresses if you need more information.

-jon