[lxc-devel] Any ETA on the next release?

[matthew byers]

I like the wiki idea as it gives another area where users can post various
fixes to issues or even tutorials for lxc. That seems to be the biggest
issue i have come across that people have with lxc itself...lack of
documentation. I have the websited saved in url but that was weeks and weeks
later after i discovered lxc. I say push to get the main website back up in
full glory and lets create a wiki as you guys suggested earlier.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at free.fr>wrote:

> On 02/03/2011 06:03 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2011 02:00 AM, matthew byers wrote:
>>
>>> rc1 has been released for testing.
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/lxc/files/lxc/lxc-0.7.4/lxc-0.7.4-rc1.tar.gz/download
>>>
>> I also note that going to
>>
>>   https://sourceforge.net/projects/lxc/files/lxc/
>>
>> A) Says that the latest version is 0.7.2 (even though that's obviously
>> not the case).
>>
>
> Yep, that will be fixed with 0.7.4
> I noticed the 0.7.3 has a regression with the mount point and I decided to
> not publish it in the website.
> I just uploaded the tarball to the download directory for archive.
>
> B) Doesn't show anything under 0.7.4 unless you know to click on it and
>> look.
>>
>> In general, sourceforge gives you an awful lot of cobweb pages by
>> default.  I'd recommend having the web page be the face of the project
>> and linking the bits you use from there.  (For example, from the
>> sourceforge page for the project, develop->news goes to:
>>
>>   https://sourceforge.net/news/?group_id=163076
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> Which has never had anything on it.  (No, I'm not suggesting adding any.
>>  Sourceforge _will_ provide infrastructure that any given project
>> doesn't use, we should just be clear which bits we are and aren't using,
>> presumably by linking them from the web page so people can find them.)
>>
>
> It is already done but I think the web site is not clear enough.
>
> I do note that sourceforge seems to have provided a wiki, which might be
>> useful if it didn't have such a horrible URL.  I don't suppose there's a
>> way to set up some kind of website rewrite rule to transparently
>> redirect?  (Dunno how the website is currently set up...)
>>
>
> Right the wiki could be interesting, but wordpress gives easy and nice web
> editing feature similar to a wiki.
> That may be interesting to separate the web part owned by the project
> administrator and a wiki where everyone can add information.
>
>


-- 
God Bless
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-devel/attachments/20110203/84cb71c2/attachment.html>