bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joachim Dreimann <>
Subject Re: Public demo instance hosted by third party
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:18:02 GMT
Indeed I think the ASF VM should be our first priority. I'm talking about a
temporary solution until then, not an advertising drive.
I recognise that this could be a slippery slope (regarding user
perception), but I feel confident enough that the lack of slope (ie users)
is more important at this point. Hopefully Gary's change to the ticket and
comment will achieve some progress.

- Joe

On 10 January 2013 15:12, Gary Martin <> wrote:

> On 10/01/13 12:18, Nick Burch wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
>>> We've been trying to get a demo instance of Bloodhound set up for some
>>> time. Currently the effort is still stuck with ASF Infra [1].
>> It might be worth engaging with infra on this. It's possible that by
>> asking several different things in one ticket (vm, build infra etc), it has
>> confused things. Hopefully someone from infra could advise on what's needed
>> to get it all moving (potentially by splitting out the build queries)
>> Nick
> It may well be that we have not pushed hard enough on the ticket but it is
> the first ticket we have raised that did not generate some kind of response
> relatively quickly. I've updated the ticket to remove the extra question,
> leaving the details of what I think we want and a few details of how we
> will subsequently use the resource.
> Any other advice would be good!
> I don't think Joe is suggesting that we stop trying to get the VM of
> course. I still work on the assumption that we will get the VM eventually
> or get given appropriate advice on infra provided alternatives.
> Cheers,
>     Gary

Joe Dreimann
UX Designer | WANdisco <>
*Transform your software development department. Register for a free SVN
HealthCheck <> *

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message