Re: Log from the June 1st 2009 D-I team meeting
On Tuesday 02 June 2009, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Dienstag, 2. Juni 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > I disagree with you; while I agree that d-i.alioth.d.o exists for
> > ages I do believe d-i.debian.org is much nicer for documents and
> > easier to remember for users. So I see no big issue to use it.
>
> yet more looking for the right ressource for d-i? wiki.d.o/d-i,
> www.d.o/d-i, d-i.alioth.d.o and now d-i.d.o? why not make d-i.d.o a
> redirect to d-i.a.d.o?
No. They serve two completely different purposes.
d-i.d.o was created recently on ravel (people.d.o) explicitly to host the
daily built D-I images. Access to that virtual host is restricted to the
d-i ldap group, currently with only two (!) members.
For hosting the daily images this is perfect: you really don't want to
have a large group of people with write access to a location from where
fairly official images are published [1].
The meeting logs are a completely different animal. There is absolutely no
reason why those should be kept in a location that is not accessible to
all team members.
The most likely reason why Christian is using d-i.d.o instead of our old
alioth location is that was either unaware of its existence, or had
forgotten about it.
I also don't buy Otavio's argument that d-i.d.o is so much nicer.
Especially something like the meeting logs is only accessed through links
from the wiki or mails, so the URL does not make ANY difference for
practical purposes.
It might be different if we were hosting a full D-I website on d-i.d.o,
but we're not. We use www.d.o for that. So the only thing we use both
d-i.a.d.o and d-i.d.o for is to host random directories and files. And
for that use I strongly feel that files that don't need special
protection should be kept on alioth, and not locked away.
Cheers,
FJP
[1] Another reason to prefer a "dedicated" host for the daily images is
their combined size. They would be an unfair burden on alioth.
Reply to: