This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Tooling GForge Re-evaluation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Astechishin (talk | contribs) |
Astechishin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Continue With GForge== | ==Continue With GForge== | ||
| + | ====Cost==== | ||
| + | $9600/per annum | ||
| + | ====Link==== | ||
| + | [[http://www.gforgegroup.com]] | ||
====Description==== | ====Description==== | ||
Continue to use the current GForge provider but take actions to dramatically reduce disk usage | Continue to use the current GForge provider but take actions to dramatically reduce disk usage | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Discussion=== | ===Discussion=== | ||
====Pro==== | ====Pro==== | ||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
==''Template for Alternative''== | ==''Template for Alternative''== | ||
| + | ====Cost==== | ||
====Description==== | ====Description==== | ||
| − | |||
===Discussion=== | ===Discussion=== | ||
====Pro==== | ====Pro==== | ||
Revision as of 06:19, 13 October 2011
Contents
Tooling GForge Re-Evaluation
- see Project Insight # 804 for Project Scope Statement
Continue With GForge
Cost
$9600/per annum
Link
[[1]]
Description
Continue to use the current GForge provider but take actions to dramatically reduce disk usage
Discussion
Pro
- Least impact on members and committers
Con
- Provider has been unable to give details on where and what to 'reduce'
- We currently think we use some 20 GB but the provider states that we are close to 80% of our 90GB capacity
Template for Alternative
Cost
Description
Discussion
Pro
- add comment in favour of alternative
Con
- add comment against alternative
