Forum OpenACS Q&A: Response to OpenNSD - should we or shouldn't we?

Posted by C. R. Oldham on
I'm reposting this from the AOLserver discussion list--apologies if everyone here is already subscribed:

Message-ID:  <>
Date:        Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:17:12 -0400
Reply-To: AOLserver Discussion <mailto:AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: AOLserver Discussion <mailto:AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: Nathan Folkman <mailto:shmooved@MAC.COM>
Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] Whither the tcl API documentation?


I'm the one who asked Kriston to change to point to SourceForge. Here's why:

- With the exception of the documentation, the rest of the site already pointed to tools on SourceForge, this move just completes the migration.

- While the short term situation with the documentation is admittedly less then ideal, having the documentation administered via SourceForge tools should allow everyone to more easily contribute and update the docs. All of the documentation is still available via a downloadable tar ball which can be installed locally in the mean time.

A quick heads up on some of the work going on here at AOL with regards to AOLserver. You may have noticed an aolserver_v35_bp in CVS. 3.5 is basically the same code base as 3.4.2 but with Tcl ripped out. To compile 3.5, you'll need to check out and compile Tcl 8.4. The whole configure and Makefile setup is identical to what you can expect in 4.0. The 3.5 version was done to help ease the migration to 4.0. Once some more internal testing is complete, we'll tag the code and provide some 3.5 binaries.

Work on AOLserver 4.0 is nearing completion as well. I'll update everyone once we've got some more firm dates. Part of the work going on with 4.0 is to update the Tcl and C documentation.

The contributions by the AOLserver community are valuable and very much appreciated. With the move to SourceForge now complete, there shouldn't be any further changes to the site - now it's up to you! Please feel free to drop me email with any suggestions. Thanks again!

- Nathan Folkman

On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 08:42 AM, Daniel P. Stasinski wrote:

<blockquote>> I actually liked the site.  How was
> moving to SourceForge a good thing?

It's been on sourceforge for over a year, just had it's own face.  I
don't think anyone below management level knows why it was changed,
but considering the flurry of code development going on now, I'm
remaining happy
and optimistic.

Daniel P. Stasinski