[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: installation-guide is marked for autoremoval from testing


Holger Wansing <linux@wansing-online.de> (2018-05-13):
> However, there is much more work to do here, "svn" and "alioth" is
> often mentioned in the manual.

That's fair. But maybe we should track this as a different RC bug (just
to make extra sure this doesn't go unnoticed/unfixed until the release),
which could be closed later on?

Steve, do we have to have installation-guide in testing to build Alpha
or RC images?

> And:
> maybe the workflow of xml-based translations is affected by git migration?
> Tracking the up-to-date-status of those files is handled with svn revision
> numbers, which are no longer available now IMHO.
> How to deal with this?
> Is it worse to overwork the relevant scripts, to make them work with git
> hashes, or should we just drop xml-based translations altogether now?
> Most translations have switched to po already, from the up-to-date
> languages only Czech is left on xml.

I don't have stats handy, but if there's only Czech around, I think time
would be better spent moving it from xml to po? I suppose this is a
transition that had been underway for a while and was never completed?
I'm not sure whether we should work on porting any other xml-based
translations if there's nobody active on them?

> Christian, any opinion on this?

… but I'm definitely happy to hear more about this from Christian or

Again, I'm so sorry this is getting kind of forced onto us, but I don't
think it would have been reasonable to take responsibility for
maintaining an svn server forever anyway. :(

> > > However, that would be an upload for Buster (there's "Bump release
> > > name to buster" in the changelog).
> > 
> > I'm not sure why that would be an issue? The manual documents the buster
> > installation process (which shouldn't have changed too much?), but the
> > upload targets unstable as usual?
> I remembered some trouble with the debian-refcard, where the
> publication on the debian.org website was affected, because the
> website directly uses the latest uploaded package version.

I think we've had fixes on the website generation framework to handle
that problem exactly. If we spot issues (again), we should work on
fixing them, rather than being limited in our upload capacity on the
installation guide side, I think?

> But the installation-guide is handled differently here apparently, so
> that's most probably not a problem here...

We'll see. :)

Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: