offlineimap.org, dev testing area and more...

[Philippe LeCavalier]

Gents,

On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 18:11 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:17:18 +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev at laposte.net> wrote:
> > > Can we revisit Sebastian's offer to grab and use offlineimap.org?
> > > I guess firstly, Sebastian, does the offer still stand?
> 
> Sure :).
Perfect. I hadn't realized you already had it registered. Again, perfect.
> I mentioned http://sfconservancy.org/ previously. Would it make sense to
> join any such umbrella that could hold the domain name officially? Or is
> that overkill really? (note that there exist many such umbrellas and I
> don't favor a specific one). Alternatively, if people trust me, I can
> just keep it and provide the domain name and/or webspace.
Agreed. It does sorta sound over-the-top but I think this would be the
wisest option. That way, we're all certain there are no issues moving
forward. 
> 
> > > 		c)limitations/costs, ownership...etc.
> > > 		limits) If the throughput stays under a certain amount I don't care
> > > about *any* form of compensation. That said, I'm freakin poor. So if the
> > > throughput is in excess of what is included in my plan would need some
> > > form of compensation.
> 
> Well, I don't think, we will be needing terabytes of traffic. Especially
> given that I expect the code to remain on github and the mailing list
> archive to remain at alioth (or any other hoster), but this basic
> infrastructure stuff is nothing that we should be doing ourselves.
Agreed.
> What we *can* do, is provide a central "entry door" pointing to the
> various resources that we have. I think a wiki section where we can
> collect "user provided config examples and tipps and tricks" would also
> be cool.
A portal is certainly the way to go.
> > - the domain name must be easily retrievable by his owner and if agreed;
> > - check if the current hosting (if still offered) provides more
> >   capacities/features;
> 
> I'd be offering a simple shared webhost, which is offered without
> traffic limitations (but a fair use policy so I bet dreamhost.com would
> complain quickly if we started to relay the world's internet traffic
> through them).
> 
> Access via FTP/SFTP or shell. I could also set up a wiki/joomla or
> whatever people who would be doing some web work prefer....
No offense but I used to have shared hosting before I moved to VPS and I
don't think it would be wise to move any serious project to such an
environment.

I can offer a VPS enviro which would be a little more appropriate I
think. Like I mentioned previously, I highly doubt the traffic would be
anything for me to be concerned about.

> > Because the mailing list is crucial for the project I won't propose to
> > move to such a private hosting.
> 
> right.
> 
> Sebastian
So I think it's clear we're looking to centralize around a site hosted
somewhere(do we vote on this -how will we the community decided where
it's hosted). We all want the most reliable & cost-free environment for
the project. My offer still stands but if we don't like private enviros
like the one I and a few others are offering what's left?

Phil